Citizens' Oversight Maryland---Maryland Progressives
CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE----SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Citizens Oversight Maryland.com
  • Home
  • Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
    • Mayoral Election violations
    • Questionnaires from Community >
      • Education Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
      • Emerging Youth Questionnaire
      • Health Care policy for Baltimore
      • Environmental Questionnaires
      • Livable Baltimore questionnaire
      • Labor Questionnnaire
      • Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
      • Maryland Out of School Time Network
      • LBGTQ Questionnaire
      • Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
      • Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
      • The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
      • Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
      • African American Tourism and business questionnaire
      • Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
      • City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
      • Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
      • Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
      • AFRO questionnaire
      • WBAL Candidate's Survey
  • Blog
  • Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
  • Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
    • Third Way Think Tanks
  • Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >
      • CFPB Actions
    • Voted to Repeal Glass-Steagall
    • Federal Reserve >
      • Federal Reserve Actions
    • Securities and Exchange Commission >
      • SEC Actions
    • Commodity Futures Trading Commission >
      • CFTC Actions
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency >
      • OCC Actions
    • Office of Treasury/ Inspector General for the Treasury
    • FINRA >
      • FINRA ACTIONS
  • Federal Healthcare Reform
    • Health Care Fraud in the US
    • Health and Human Services Actions
  • Social Security and Entitlement Reform
    • Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP Actions
  • Federal Education Reform
    • Education Advocates
  • Government Schedules
    • Baltimore City Council
    • Maryland State Assembly >
      • Budget and Taxation Committee
    • US Congress
  • State and Local Government
    • Baltimore City Government >
      • City Hall Actions
      • Baltimore City Council >
        • Baltimore City Council Actions
      • Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting >
        • Board of Estimates Actions
    • Governor's Office >
      • Telling the World about O'Malley
    • Lt. Governor Brown
    • Maryland General Assembly Committees >
      • Communications with Maryland Assembly
      • Budget and Taxation Committees >
        • Actions
        • Pension news
      • Finance Committees >
        • Schedule
      • Business Licensing and Regulation
      • Judicial, Rules, and Nominations Committee
      • Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee >
        • Committee Actions
    • Maryland State Attorney General >
      • Open Meetings Act
      • Maryland Courts >
        • Maryland Court System
    • States Attorney - Baltimore's Prosecutor
    • State Comptroller's Office >
      • Maryland Business Tax Reform >
        • Business Tax Reform Issues
  • Maryland Committee Actions
    • Board of Public Works >
      • Public Works Actions
    • Maryland Public Service Commission >
      • Public Meetings
    • Maryland Health Care Commission/Maryland Community Health Resources Commission >
      • MHCC/MCHRC Actions
    • Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
  • Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
    • Baltimore/Maryland Development History
    • Committee Actions
    • Maryland Development Organizations
  • Maryland State Department of Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Public Schools
    • Algebra Project Award
  • Baltimore City School Board
    • Charter Schools >
      • Charter Schools---Performance
      • Charter School Issues
    • Public Schools >
      • Public School Issues
  • Progressive Issues
    • Fair and Balanced Elections
    • Labor Issues
    • Rule of Law Issues >
      • Rule of Law
    • Justice issues 2
    • Justice Issues
    • Progressive Tax Reform Issues >
      • Maryland Tax Reform Issues
      • Baltimore Tax Reform Issues
    • Strong Public Education >
      • Corporate education reform organizations
    • Healthcare for All Issues >
      • Universal Care Bill by state
  • Building Strong Media
    • Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
      • anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
      • "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
      • Promethius Radio Project
      • Clearing the Fog
      • Democracy Now
      • Black Agenda Radio
      • World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
      • Daily Censured
      • Bill Moyers Journal
      • Center for Public Integrity
      • Public Radio International
      • Baltimore Brew
      • Free Press
    • Far Left/Socialist Media
    • Media with a Third Way Agenda >
      • MSNBC
      • Center for Media and Democracy
      • Public Radio and TV >
        • NPR and MPT News
      • TruthOut
  • Progressive Organizations
    • Political Organizations >
      • Progressives United
      • Democracy for America
    • Labor Organizations >
      • United Workers
      • Unite Here Local 7
      • ROC-NY works to build power and win justice
    • Justice Organizations >
      • APC Baltimore
      • Occupy Baltimore
    • Rule of Law Organizations >
      • Bill of Rights Defense Committee
      • National Lawyers Guild
      • National ACLU
    • Tax Reform Organizations
    • Healthcare for All Organizations >
      • Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
      • PNHP Physicians for a National Health Program
      • Healthcare NOW- Maryland
    • Public Education Organizations >
      • Parents Across America
      • Philadelphia Public School Notebook thenotebook.org
      • Chicago Teachers Union/Blog
      • Ed Wize Blog
      • Educators for a Democratic Union
      • Big Education Ape
    • Elections Organizations >
      • League of Women Voters
  • Progressive Actions
    • Labor Actions
    • Justice Actions
    • Tax Reform Actions >
      • Baltimore Tax Actions
      • Maryland Tax Reform Actions
    • Healthcare Actions
    • Public Education Actions
    • Rule of Law Actions >
      • Suing Federal and State government
    • Free and Fair Elections Actions
  • Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
    • 2014 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICES
    • Maryland Assembly/Baltimore
  • Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
    • Complaints - Government and Consumer >
      • Sample Complaints
    • Petitions >
      • Sample Petitions
    • Freedom of Information >
      • Sample Letters
  • State of the Democratic Party
  • Misc
    • WBFF TV
    • WBAL TV
    • WJZ TV
    • WMAR TV
    • WOLB Radio---Radio One
    • The Gazette
    • Baltimore Sun Media Group
  • Misc 2
    • Maryland Public Television
    • WYPR
    • WEAA
    • Maryland Reporter
  • Misc 3
    • University of Maryland
    • Morgan State University
  • Misc 4
    • Baltimore Education Coalition
    • BUILD Baltimore
    • Church of the Great Commission
    • Maryland Democratic Party
    • Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
    • Maryland Municipal League
    • Maryland League of Women Voters
  • Untitled
  • Untitled
  • Standard of Review
  • Untitled
  • WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
    • Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
    • Speaking Events
    • Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
    • Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
    • Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections >
      • Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
      • Amended Complaint
      • Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
      • Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
      • Injunction and Mandamus
      • DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint >
        • Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals >
          • Cover Page ---yellow
          • Table of Contents
          • Table of Authorities
          • Leniency for Pro Se Representation
          • Statement of Case
          • Questions Presented
          • Statement of Facts
          • Argument
          • Conclusion/Font and Type Size
          • Record Extract
          • Appendix
          • Motion for Reconsideration
          • Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
          • Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
      • General Election fraud and recount complaints
    • Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations >
      • Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
      • Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
      • Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
      • US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
      • Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
        • Print press accountable to false statement of facts
      • Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
      • Viability of a candidate
      • Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
      • 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
        • 501c3 violations of election law-----private capital
      • Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
  • Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
  • Maryland Elections ---2016

January 31st, 2016

1/31/2016

0 Comments

 
As I listen to candidates for Mayor of Baltimore use Baltimore's high property tax rate for yet another election cycle----I hear nothing about the fact that O'Malley and the Maryland Assembly-----and Rawlings-Blake and Baltimore City Hall in passing the $1 billion school building bond and other bonds received a AAA rating on what should never have been allowed for a city almost at bankruptcy because these pols attached Baltimore City property taxes to float these bad bond deals. This means until we change the way these bond deals were written because public officials cannot enter agreements that kill public interest as much as all this bond debt did-----NO MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN BALTIMORE AND, WITH THE COMING ECONOMIC CRASH AND FED INTEREST RATES CLIMBING----THE PROPERTY TAXES WILL GO HIGHER-----as Wall Street takes a billion dollars in fees and interest over a few decades======and then of course we can expect the usual Wall Street fraud ------
New citizens to Baltimore must be aware that Baltimore does not educate on all the public policy issues---it allows politicians to say what they want----and this is one of the biggest issues for city homeowners.

WHAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT-------THAT MEANS BALTIMORE'S MEDIA HAS DONE ITS JOB IN KEEPING CITIZENS UNINFORMED.

Mayoral Candidates Debate Baltimore Property Taxes


January 5, 2016 5:24 PM By Alex DeMetrick

2BALTIMORE (WJZ) — It’s the chicken or egg question of this year’s race for mayor: lower property taxes to increase Baltimore’s population or increase the population to lower taxes? WJZ looked to some of the candidates for the answer.
Alex DeMetrick reports.


Property taxes fund police and fire, trash pickup and infrastructure, education from kindergarten to high school. It all makes lowering the property tax in Baltimore a challenge.
“It’s an absolute tough thing to do,” said State Senator Catherine Pugh.
According to state records, Anne Arundel County has a 2.3% property tax rate, Baltimore County is 2.75% and Baltimore City’s is 5.6%.
Mayoral candidate Nick Mosby says he’ll lower Baltimore’s rate.
“That percentage will be coming out. Again, we’re going to have a specific policy release on that percentage and exactly how we’re going to do it,” he said.
Pugh says she already has some specifics in mind.
“We begin to redevelop areas where we’ve had blight for a number of years that we can create a special property tax reduction area,” she said.
The kind of perk major developments have received.
“Why don’t we give everyone in the city a break?” said Councilman Carl Stokes.
Candidate Carl Stokes says across the board cuts in property taxes will bring more people to Baltimore and generate more money.
“That we make an even playing field for all developers, for all homeowners, for all property owners in the city of Baltimore,” Stokes said.
According to the website Real Estate Wonk, the average price for a house in Anne Arundel County is $375,000 with a tax bill of $3,700. It’s $302,000 in Baltimore County with taxes of $3,600. The average house price in the city is $171,000 with a tax bill of $4,000.
“It’s not an easy task and I’ve been there and chipped at it,” said Sheila Dixon.
Former mayor and candidate Sheila Dixon believes in investing in better schools and public safety.
“Then ultimately we’ll begin to retain citizens, increase people coming here to the city, people buying into the greatness we have here in the city,” Dixon said.
To make the city’s property tax rate competitive with surrounding counties, it would have to be reduced by half.


_______________________________________________
Nick Mosby, Stokes, Gutierrez, and others are shouting that they will lower those property taxes-----Stokes keeps using the figure of lowering them by 1/2======and none of this is true. Many of the new citizens have this tax issue at the top of the list---and they do not understand that in Baltimore---candidates are allowed to lie during primaries to get votes.
Even more ridiculous-----Mosby and Stokes voted for all this bond debt and corporate tax breaks and subsidy that is making taxes so high----all while saying they are going to lower taxes.


 The citizens of Baltimore had for the most part no idea what voting for a bond issue for building public schools and other smaller venues would entail.  Each time the city assigns bond debt it pledges future city revenue for decades to these projects which----we can all expect to grow in final cost.  The City of Baltimore was declared by Rawlings-Blake and City Council just a few years ago----teetering near bankruptcy at the same time this $1billion and more bond debt was taken.  Whereas this article makes clear our PIT------that is all personal income tax paid by citizens will service this debt for 30 years----the rest of this bond deal is written very vaguely for a reason-----'and minimum amounts from several city tax revenues'.  Did you know this deal takes from a senior and veteran's funding for example? 

The point is this----we never needed these bonds.  Everyone agrees that rebuilding oversight and accountability in Baltimore will bring back easily a billion dollars each year to the budget----I feel quite a bit more all of which would have allowed the city to pay cash to rebuild all Baltimore public schools.  They wanted to attach bond debt because that is how Wall Street manipulates deals to bring hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

ANY CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE THAT DOES NOT MAKE GETTING RID OF THIS BOND DEBT AND REWRITING THE TERMS OF ALL BOND AGREEMENTS TO PUBLIC INTEREST---WILL NOT SOLVE THE OVER-TAXATION OF CITIZENS IN BALTIMORE---TAXES WILL CONTINUE TO GROW TO FEED THESE BAD BOND DEALS.


'Sources for pledged deposits include fixed amounts from state lottery receipts and state school aid withheld by the state comptroller on behalf of BCPS, and minimum amounts from several city tax and city gaming-related revenues. The city pledged deposits are enhanced by a state intercept of city personal income tax (PIT) receipts in the event that city pledged deposits are insufficient. Certain state and city revenue sources from which pledged deposits are made are subject to annual appropriation'.

Fitch Rates Maryland Stadium Auth Baltimore School Bonds 'AA'; Outlook Stable



December 24, 2015 10:34 AM Eastern Standard Time

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Fitch Ratings has assigned a 'AA' rating to the following bonds of the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA):

--$320,000,000 MSA Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) construction and revitalization program revenue bonds, series 2016A.
The bonds are scheduled to be sold via negotiated sale on or about January 15, 2016.
The Rating Outlook is Stable.
SECURITY
The bonds are limited obligations of the authority payable from pledged deposits to the financing fund derived from multiple revenue sources: state education aid subject to appropriation by the General Assembly, state lottery revenue, city beverage container tax and casino rental revenues subject to appropriation by the city, and certain other city gaming receipts. City pledged deposits are further backed by an intercept of city income tax receipts held by the state, if needed.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
AMPLE COVERAGE OF PLEDGED DEPOSITS: Under state statutory authorization, the bonds are secured by funds deposited into the BCPS construction financing fund (the financing fund) derived from multiple state of Maryland and city of Baltimore sources, with total pledged deposits sized to cover debt service on the maximum authorized borrowing. Coverage by individual revenue sources for specific pledged deposits is exceptional, providing ample cushion against underperformance. Sources for pledged deposits include fixed amounts from state lottery receipts and state school aid withheld by the state comptroller on behalf of BCPS, and minimum amounts from several city tax and city gaming-related revenues. The city pledged deposits are enhanced by a state intercept of city personal income tax (PIT) receipts in the event that city pledged deposits are insufficient. Certain state and city revenue sources from which pledged deposits are made are subject to annual appropriation.
CLOSE STATE OVERSIGHT: The borrowing benefits from careful oversight by the state of Maryland, whose GO bonds are rated 'AAA'; Stable Outlook. The bonds and sources of repayment are authorized in state legislation, and the state Board of Public Works (BPW) must approve issuance. The Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) issues the bonds, pays the trustee from pledged deposits in the financing fund, and oversees construction. The state comptroller withholds state school aid and state lottery receipts for deposit to the financing fund and must withhold local PIT receipts held by the state in the event that city pledged deposits are insufficient.
BACKUP INTERCEPT OF CITY INCOME TAX: The rating is also supported by the ample level of interceptable city PIT receipts, a stronger pledge than the city tax and gaming sources intended to pay the bonds. PIT receipts are the second largest source of city general fund revenues. They benefit from the city's diverse though less wealthy economic profile. Fitch's assessment of the income tax intercept reflects the credit quality of the city of Baltimore.
LOTTERY REVENUES DISCRETIONARY: State lottery revenues net of administrative costs and prizes provide strong coverage of the fixed pledged deposit. Fitch views lottery sales over the long run as subject to discretionary consumer purchasing trends and sensitive to personal income, employment, demographic and competitive pressures.
STATE ROLE IN SCHOOL FUNDING: The state is the primary driver of education funding in Maryland and provides more than two-thirds of BCPS revenues. A constitutional education funding requirement and the state's expanded funding over the last decade underscore the state's commitment to school funding.
RATING SENSITIVITIES
MAINTENANCE OF LOTTERY COVERAGE: Despite the strong coverage of state lottery pledged deposits, the discretionary nature of lottery activity likely limits the rating at the current level. Evidence of significant shifts in discretionary lottery activity that narrow coverage over time could affect the rating.
STRENGTH OF CITY INCOME TAX BACKUP: The rating is sensitive to erosion in the economic, revenue and budget performance of the city given the strong enhancement of city pledged deposits provided by city PIT receipts collected and subject to intercept by the state.
CONTINUED STATE EDUCATION FUNDING: Significant changes in the state's commitment to education funding that materially reduce the appropriations from which pledged deposits are drawn, or a change in the state's GO rating, could result in a rating change, although Fitch believes that such changes are unlikely.
CREDIT PROFILE
The 'AA' rating on MSA's construction and revitalization program revenue bonds is based on Fitch's assessment of the credit quality of the varied revenue sources from which individual pledged deposits are made. The state of Maryland, whose GO bonds are rated 'AAA', is the source of most pledged deposits intended for debt service and the credit is further supported by the state's broader role in authorizing the bonds, overseeing their repayment, and implementing the program.
However, the rating is limited by both the credit quality of state lottery receipts, which Fitch views as a narrow and discretionary source of repayment despite the exceptional coverage it provides for state lottery pledged deposits, and by the credit quality of the city, whose PIT revenues are subject to state intercept in the event that city pledged deposits from intended beverage tax and certain gaming revenues are below the statutory thresholds. Fitch views the intercept of city PIT revenues as being a stronger repayment source than the underlying city pledged deposits and as linked to the broader credit quality of the city itself.
STATE AUTHORIZATION AND OVERSIGHT
The new bonds are authorized under 2013 state statutes providing for a maximum issuance of $1.1 billion to be supported by $60 million in annual pledged deposits from all sources. The current sale is the first of several planned to fund the repair or replacement of up to 28 Baltimore school facilities over 5 years.
The 2013 authorizing statutes established the bonds' multiple repayment sources and expanded the MSA's role to issuing the bonds, coordinating their repayment, and overseeing completion of the projects. Legislation established two funds under MSA oversight and held by the state treasurer: the BCPS financing fund receives pledged deposits from or on behalf of the state, BCPS and city, and the BCPS facilities fund holds other funds intended for construction and excess city pledged deposits, if any, including a reserve established at MSA's discretion, discussed in further detail below. Pledged deposits are in a closed loop, and the financing fund may not revert to the general or any special fund of the state.
Only deposits made to the financing fund are pledged to bondholders, although statutory uses of the facilities fund includes bond repayment. Annual pledged deposits from varying sources are statutorily phased in to reach a minimum of $60 million as of fiscal year 2017. A separate trust agreement establishes accounts held by the trustee, including the construction fund to which bond proceeds are deposited and the debt service fund which receives transfers by the MSA from the financing fund.
Fitch views the state's inherent credit strengths, reflected in its 'AAA' GO rating, as supporting the high credit quality of the new bonds. The bonds are integrated into the state's careful and centralized capital and debt management frameworks, despite not being considered state tax-supported debt, and are supported by allocations of statewide-revenue sources and appropriations of state education aid. The 2013 authorizing legislation required the MSA, BCPS, city, and the interagency committee on school construction, which oversees school capital projects, to conclude a memo of understanding (MOU) to carry out the program, subject to approval by the BPW (which consists of the governor, treasurer and comptroller). The 2013 legislation also requires annual reporting to the governor, BPW and legislature on program progress. As with state GO and other tax-supported issues, borrowing under the current authorization must be approved by the BPW.
PLEDGED DEPOSITS FROM STATE LOTTERY
Pledged deposits include a fixed $20 million amount from state lottery sales receipts, net of administrative costs and prize winnings, and subordinate to a fixed $20 million senior payment for MSA facilities and a small variable annual deposit intended for a state veterans' trust fund. The state lottery pledged deposits made by the comptroller are statutorily required on an annual basis beginning in fiscal 2016, with at least $10 million due by December 1 and the remainder due by fiscal year end; no appropriation is required. Lottery receipts after the pledged deposit are transferred to the state general fund.
Lottery sales provide ample coverage of pledged deposits despite the required payments senior to pledged deposits. In fiscal 2015, an estimated $525.9 million in lottery receipts net of prizes and administrative costs covered senior required payments and the pledged deposit for the current bonds by 13.2x.
The strong projected coverage by net lottery receipts compares favorably to other lottery-backed debt rated by Fitch and supports the rating at the 'AA' level. However, Fitch views lottery revenues to be an inherently less certain source of bond repayment than broader tax revenues, given the discretionary nature of consumers' lottery purchases and their exposure to cyclical, structural and administrative factors; these considerations limit the rating at the current level.
EDUCATION AID SUPPORTING THE BONDS
Education aid appropriated by the state and allocated to BCPS is intended to be the source of $30 million in pledged deposits on an ongoing basis, beginning in fiscal 2017. Under the bonds' authorization, the bonds are supported by two separate, fixed school aid amounts, one derived from unrestricted aid and the other derived from additional state aid resulting from a temporary school retiree health cost transfer from the city of Baltimore.
The bonds' authorizing statute requires the deposit of $10 million in fiscal year 2016 and $20 million annually thereafter from unrestricted state education aid. These amounts are withheld on a bimonthly basis by the comptroller and deposited on behalf of BCPS in the financing fund. Fiscal 2015 unrestricted aid allocated to BCPS totaled $907 million and covered the $20 million pledged deposit required beginning in fiscal 2017 by 45.4x.
Additionally, $10 million annually in additional school aid received by BCPS is withheld by the comptroller on a bimonthly basis and deposited to the financing fund. The additional school aid is generated from a separate transfer to BCPS by the city of funds which allow BCPS to maximize state maintenance of effort formula aid. The transferred city funds are intended for health costs of school retirees borne by the city; the transfer is ultimately returned to the city, which remains responsible for these costs. The $70.3 million in fiscal 2015 additional state aid covers the $10 million pledged deposit by 7x.
Subsequent legislative action allowed the $20 million in authorized fiscal 2016 deposits from both unrestricted and additional state aid sources to flow instead to BCPS given school budget needs and the absence of borrowing under the program to date.
EXTENSIVE STATE ROLE IN EDUCATION
Virtually all BCPS operating revenues derive from state, city and federal transfers, with more than three-fourths of general fund receipts consisting of state aid. As of fiscal 2014, 77% of general fund revenues consisted of state education aid with a further 21% from city sources. State statute caps BCPS debt at $200 million, excluding federally-qualified school construction bonds and lease revenue bonds, and as with school aid pledged deposits for the current bonds, debt service on BCPS-issued debt is withheld by the comptroller from appropriated state education aid. The school board overseeing BCPS consists of nine members appointed by the governor and mayor.
Although BCPS is a legally separate component unit of the city, Fitch views credit risks originating from BCPS as limited given the state's primary role in setting statewide education policy, funding school operating and capital needs, and overseeing school governance.
The state's role in funding education is mandated by Maryland's constitution. Statutory formula provisions governing aid incorporate numerous factors including pupil counts and community wealth and are subject to legislative changes. However, protections of appropriated state aid are extensive and include a requirement that the governor seek appropriation of the amount requested by the state school superintendent and limits on reducing appropriated aid or using it for non-education purposes.
Maryland expanded statewide school aid significantly in the decade prior to the downturn, with small increases continuing since then. The state reports that the average increase in state aid for public schools rose 10.3% annually between fiscal years 2002-2008, a period during which the state was implementing far reaching changes in school funding. Despite the downturn and slow economic and revenue recovery thereafter, state school aid declined only slightly in fiscal year 2010 and has increased an average of 1.9% annually between fiscal years 2008-2016.
INTENDED CITY PLEDGED DEPOSITS
Unlike the fixed pledged deposits of state lottery and school aid, pledged deposits by the city are intended to achieve a minimum threshold each fiscal year and are additionally enhanced by a backup state intercept of city PIT receipts, which Fitch views as a stronger source of credit quality than the intended pledged deposits. The city's minimum pledged deposits must total $8 million in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 (fiscal year-end June 30), and $10 million annually from fiscal 2017 through final maturity; half of the deposits are required by November 1 in each fiscal year, with the other half by May 1.
The intended source of city pledged deposits include beverage container taxes and certain gaming-related receipts. Receipts from beverage container taxes, levied at $0.05 per container on distributors of most bottled beverages, are required to be deposited to the financing fund in their entirety, subject to appropriation by the City Council. The tax generated nearly $10.4 million in fiscal 2015. The current rate has been in effect since fiscal 2014, and the tax was first enacted in fiscal 2010.
In addition, city pledged deposits include two gaming sources from the city's Horseshoe Casino, a privately-owned and operated casino that opened under state authorization in August 2014. Pledged deposits include 10% of the participation rent from the casino, subject to city appropriation, and half of the 5% of the casino's table games proceeds that is statutorily allocated to the city, but not subject to appropriation.
The casino operator is required to pay rent under a ground lease based on the greater of a fixed dollar amount or a percentage of gross gaming proceeds; 10% of this would be intended as a pledged deposit, or approximately $856,000 in the lease year ending Sept. 30, 2015. The allocated percentage of table games is payable only upon completion of Maryland's sixth and final casino, currently under construction near Washington, DC. Scheduled completion is in 2016.
Fitch views the short operating histories of the city's intended sources of pledged deposits as being inherent credit weaknesses. Moreover, the two gaming sources are exposed to a range of sector- and site-specific risks, including competitive pressures from expanded gaming in the mid-Atlantic region and the fact that revenues are generated at a single operating site in the city.
CITY PIT PROVIDES ENHANCEMENT
The intercept of city PIT receipts is an inherently stronger source of credit quality than the intended sources of city pledged deposits, in Fitch's view. Although collected and held by the state, Fitch's understanding is that city PIT receipts could be subject to interruption in the unlikely event that the state authorizes, and the city files for, bankruptcy. Consequently, Fitch views the credit quality of the intercept as being limited by the credit quality of the city itself.
All Maryland counties levy a PIT on the state's taxable income base at a rate determined by the county or the city of Baltimore up to a statutory cap of 3.2%. The city's PIT is levied at the cap, collected by the state comptroller, and remitted to the city on a quarterly basis, with some lag to account for refunds.
PIT trends generally track the broader economic cyclicality of the region and state. Baltimore's PIT receipts have grown an average of 3.9% annually since fiscal 2002; this incorporates a single rate increase in fiscal 2011, to 3.2% from 3.05%. PIT receipts are the city's second-largest source of tax revenue following property taxes; receipts totaled $284 million in fiscal 2014, providing potential coverage of the ongoing $10 million minimum city pledged deposit by 28.4x.
Timing provisions for the intercept are adequate and coverage of the $10 million pledged deposit would be substantial. The bonds' authorizing legislation specifies that, in the event city pledged deposits are inadequate as of each November 1 or May 1 deposit date and any reserve amounts held in the facilities fund are insufficient, the MSA must notify the comptroller, who withholds city PIT receipts in the state's custody and deposits them to the financing fund by the following December 15 or June 15. The MSA transfers funds from the financing fund to the trustee for debt service on the following April 5 and October 5, for debt service on May 1 and November 1.
RESERVE NOT PLEDGED TO BONDHOLDERS
In the event of insufficient city pledged deposits, the bond authorization requires that funds held in the reserve held in the facilities fund, if established by the MSA, be depleted first, before triggering the city PIT intercept noted above.
The reserve is established at the MSA's discretion within the facilities fund. In the event that city pledged deposits to the financing fund exceed the minimum thresholds, the MSA is authorized to transfer excess city pledged deposits to the facilities fund and retain up to $2.5 million annually in the reserve. A cumulative maximum of $20 million may be retained. These amounts may be increased by agreement of parties to the MOU.
Funds in the facilities fund, including excess city pledged deposits in the reserve, are not pledged to bondholders, and thus Fitch does not view the reserve account as providing additional bondholder protection.
For more information on the State of Maryland, please see Fitch's rating action commentary 'Fitch Rates $500MM Maryland GOs 'AAA'; Outlook Stable,' dated July 7, 2015 and available at www.fitch ratings.com.
Additional information is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'.
Fitch recently published an exposure draft of state and local government tax-supported criteria (Exposure Draft: U.S. Tax-Supported Rating Criteria, dated Sept. 10, 2015). The draft includes a number of proposed revisions to existing criteria. If applied in the proposed form, Fitch estimates the revised criteria would result in changes to less than 10% of existing tax-supported ratings. Fitch expects that final criteria will be approved and published by Jan. 20, 2016. Once approved, the criteria will be applied immediately to any new issue and surveillance rating review. Fitch anticipates the criteria to be applied to all ratings that fall under the criteria within a 12-month period from the final approval date.


_____________________________________________

I attended a housing justice seminar at the U of M ----where we listened to Harvard/Wall Street sell what will be the next big capture of Baltimore City revenue for decades if allowed to be installed----and it is all for corporate housing for workers, being sold as housing justice for low-income Baltimore citizens and JOBS, JOBS, JOBS for building.  It is all a scam but what is far worse is yet more municipal bond debt to the tune of another $1 billion coming to build all that corporate housing.

Financial researchers have known from 2009 that Obama, Congress, and the FED installed policy deliberately to super-heat the US Treasury and municipal bond market------policy making it attractive to create all that Federal, state, and local debt.  They did so knowing it would make the bond market crash and hard taking our economy with it---and leaving all levels of government with massive debt----as in Baltimore.  A person on this panel at a University for goodness sake was allowed to shout at me----THE MUNI-MARKET IS NOT GOING TO COLLAPSE.   Hello----everyone knows the muni-market is going to collapse.

This is the point-----candidates for Mayor of Baltimore are mostly the same pols that exposed the city to all this debt----knowing they would bring Baltimore to such a level of debt we will likely default on bonds in this coming economic crash----or, they will make all Baltimore citizens sell a kidney on the black market as revenue for the city.  Still shouting to use the same Wall Street debt in development----still shouting that they are going to bring tax rates down in Baltimore----ready to float yet another bond deal in this coming election to install corporate housing for workers.


'For some months now, the municipal bond market has been in turmoil over the possibility that multiple issuers could default on their obligations. Much like how the mortgage-backed bond market cracked and then shattered, spreading chaos throughout the credit markets, the worst-case fear is that there could be a cascade of defaults throughout the country. These defaults would not only be serious for those who depend upon municipal bonds to fund some portion of their retirement needs, but also for the states and state-sponsored agencies that depend upon the muni market for capital. (For a little background and history of this market, check out Fatal Seduction Of The Municipal Bond Insurers.)

Moreover, just as the collapse of the mortgage-backed bond market spread far beyond the debt markets and into the stock markets and economy at large, so too is the fear that a wave of muni defaults will rattle the economy and stocks once again. With all of the worry and anxiety, then, investors have been selling out of these bonds, pushing yields to two-year highs'.



Now, you will hear nothing about this in Baltimore's Mayoral Forums----nothing in the news on policy issues------and yet it is the GORILLA in the room as regards all government revenue and stability of local economies.  A Mayor of Baltimore would immediately challenge the legitimacy of all this bond debt------the fact that none of it has any public interest built into this debt----and stop the move towards bankruptcy that global pols plan to use as the excuse to hand all that is public to global corporations.  Think about policies being written that encourage more city debt----all I hear from Mosby, Stokes, Dixon, Pugh----is more leverage----more partnerships with developers----the same stances that created the mound of debt in Baltimore and the long-term stagnant economy.  To end my talk on Social Security Trust------this US Treasury and municipal bond market collapse is aimed right at all retirement savings----from pensions and 401Ks----to our Social Security Trust all part of the US Treasury and the trillions of dollars in bond debt. 

THEY THINK THEY ARE IMPLODING OUR PERSONAL WEALTH AND RETIREMENT SYSTEMS-----AND WE NEED TO SAY----WHAT A CRIME!



The Approaching Muni Bond Collapse


03/18/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011
  • Garrett Johnson Freelance writer
New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch made a statement last week that should have gotten headlines, but didn't.


"I believe that the states across the United States will face deficits a year after stimulus ends of $300 billion to $500 billion a year," Ravitch told about 200 people gathered at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. "You're going to begin to see cracks in the municipal bond market well before then, because that's an inexorable casualty of unfundable state deficits."
To put this into perspective, the total state budgets for 2010 was about $1.4 Trillion. If his predictions are anywhere close to being true then the budget problems of the states are essentially unfixable. "These are numbers that are unprecedented," Ravitch said, adding that the current recession is unlike any in the nation's history, with unemployment continuing to rise, "banks are falling like autumn leaves, and nobody is projecting any significant growth in 2010."
The condition of state and local budgets are in their worst shape since the Great Depression, and if the economy doesn't turn around quicker than the mainstream believes, we are going to see defaults that will shake the economy to its foundation. The states are suffering "unbelievable" revenue shortages that are blowing out all previous budget estimates. Only four months into the 2010 fiscal year, 26 states already have deficit problems totaling $16 Billion. This is after the states had to close $178 Billion of budget gaps this past summer. Only 22 states had budgets deficits of less than 20% of their total budgets. At least 9 states are projecting deficits for 2011 of at least 20%, and those are often optimistic projections.
All the easy cuts have been made. Any new cuts will mean sawing into bone.

The states have mostly closed the budget gaps through borrowing, and for now the market has responded well with strong demand. However, lately the sheer volume of supply in the three trillion dollar market is starting to drive up yields.
State and local government bonds have dropped almost 2 percent since Sept. 30, based on Merrill Lynch & Co.'s Municipal Master Index, which lost a record 5.1 percent in September 2008. At least four states -- Washington, Hawaii, Maryland and Minnesota -- have postponed or scaled back refinancing plans this month as benchmark borrowing costs rose the most since January as measured by the weekly Bond Buyer 20 index.
It used to be that the state and local governments didn't have to worry too much about yields. Just a few years ago they sold through the monolines. These insurance companies would back the municipal bonds with their AAA ratings for a small fee. The monolines got their cut. The local governments sold their debt at low interest rates. Everyone was happy. So what happened? The monolines got greedy. They weren't satisfied with their steady profits from the current business model. They wanted a piece of the sub-prime action. They started backing sub-prime mortgage-backed securities. When the mortgages blew up, the monolines were forced to pay out larger and larger amounts on those losses. Eventually the monolines lost their AAA ratings, and now they no longer have a sustainable business model.
Since the insured municipal bond model has blown up the muni bond market has gotten much more volatile. In February the muni auction-rate bond market completely collapsed. This happened less than a month after monoline insurer Ambac was downgraded, along with all the bonds it insured.
From 1984 through 2006, only 13 auctions failed, typically because of changes in the credit of the borrower, according to Moody's Investors Service. There were 31 failures in the second half of 2007, and 32 during a two-week period beginning in January. That compares with more than 480 failures yesterday alone, according to figures compiled by Deutsche Bank AG, Wilmington Trust Corp. and Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
Economist and author Frederick J. Sheehan recently wrote an article about the municipal bond market, and he didn't mince words.
The municipal market will probably repeat the pattern of the sub-prime collapse.
...
Some reasons for municipal collapse:

First, losses on investments will require much higher pension contributions. Estimates vary but some states and towns will need to increase their contribution by 50% or even 100% start ing in 2010 or 2011.
Second, spending has exploded. In New York City, the average compensation for full-time worker rose from $65,401 in 2000 to $106,743 - a 63% increase...
Third, accounting gimmicks are near an end. To meet booming expenses, many municipalities have engaged in questionable practices, such as selling property to meet current expenses...
Fourth, disclosure to municipal bondholders has been poor. Financial disclosure for municipal financing is not well enforced...
Even during the relatively good bubble years of pre-2007 the states and local governments spent more than they took in with taxes.
Most people assume that muni bonds are safe from default. That's not true. Between 1970 and 2000 there were only 18 defaults on rated muni bonds. For instance, Cleveland in 1978 and New York a few years earlier. However, there were over 1,300 defaults on un-rated muni bonds during the same period.
Since the Great Depression is the comparison here, let's look at an example.
In 1933, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the City of Dubuque was
required to meet its bond commitments. Kevin A. Kordana, a University of Virginia Law School professor, has written: "[T]axpayers promptly replaced the Iowa Supreme Court justices with 'judges already committed to their anti-bond- holder viewpoint.'"24 A tangle in the federal courts followed which would require more explanation than it is worth, but a headline from the New York Times probably says all one needs to know about human tendencies in time of woe: "Iowa Farmers Abduct Judge From Court; Beat Him and Put Rope Around His Neck."


In 1935 there were at least 3,252 municipal issues in default. It's worth noting that the bottom of the Great Depression was in 1933.
0 Comments

January 30th, 2016

1/30/2016

0 Comments

 
Below you see how this Social Security privatization is taking place at the state level as well by Clinton/Obama neo-liberals and Republicans.  Remember, most states join the Federal government in payroll tax deductions that add to Social Security for state and county/city government employees.  These states are now reverting this payroll deduction to the Obama myRA deduction sent to the stock market.  Maryland has one of the most corrupt use of pension funds and as well this SS Trust contribution funding probably has been misappropriated and never happened as the article below indicates-----
Heather was of course promoted as the left-leaning progressive by Emily's List----the Clinton neo-liberal led woman's organization.  Mizeur was ALWAYS CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERAL AND THIS ONE ISSUE SHOWS THAT----


CREATING A PRIVATIZED STATE RETIREMENT FUND TO REPLACE THE STATE'S CONTRIBUTION TO FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY FOR STATE AND COUNTY/CITY EMPLOYEES.  YOUR STATE IS PROBABLY DOING THE SAME-----WE NEED TO STOP THIS.

Americans supporting the ending of public sector benefits as 'too expensive for taxpayers' need to know-----pensions are often the only support some public employees have as they are not tied to Federal SS Trust as private employees are.


Chicago's Public Employees Do Not Get Social Security
Published: 07 August 2013
That little tidbit would have been useful information to include in an article on Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plans to cut public employee pensions. The piece reports that retired workers receive:
"average annual benefits ranging from about $34,000 for a general-services retiree to $78,000 for a former teacher with 30 years of service." 
These payments will in most cases be the vast majority of retirees' income since workers who spent their entire careers working for the city will not be receiving Social Security benefits. It also would have been worth noting that the actual payments (rather than schedules for long-term employees) average just over $37,000 a year under the city's main retirement fund.


Heather Mizeur for Governor of Maryland

Provide a Secure Retirement for All Marylanders


After working for their entire lives, Marylanders deserve a secure and dignified retirement. Under our current system, too many workers face an uncertain future. By establishing a state-run savings option, we can make it easier and more affordable for Marylanders to save for a secure retirement.
Read Heather's plan to create a state-run retirement savings fund.

Please take a look at this even if you are not a state or county/local government employee because what comes to them will come to all Americans and their Social Security Trust.  I brought point 10 to the top because it sets the tone right at the start------the Inspector General report indicates that many states failed to meet their SS contribution for state and county/city employees so there is a 'SHORTFALL' for government employees and think how those government employees never attached to Federal SS----like police and fire department will be affected.


10.  What is the OIG report and how did it affect the Social Security coverage for public employees?


In December 1996, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued audit report #A-04-95-06013, “Social Security Coverage of State and Local Government Employees.”  SSA requested the audit to determine if serious reporting problems existed, and, if so, the extent—as earnings that are not properly reported by employers can lead to inaccurate employee earnings records, which can affect Social Security benefit entitlement and payment.
The report concluded that there is a significant risk of noncompliance by government employers with the State and local coverage provisions. OIG noted the following problems: No systematic compliance reviews by either IRS or SSA; Insufficient data collection and exchange between IRS and SSA, and widespread confusion as to the responsibilities of SSA, IRS and the States. In response to the problems, OIG made the following recommendations: That SSA fund an ongoing compliance program for public employers; pursue a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with IRS outlining the respective roles and responsibilities of each agency, and, as a possible long-term solution, study the feasibility of universal coverage of all public employees.
Note:  The MOU was completed and signed by both the Social Security and IRS Commissioners in the spring 2002.


Social Security for government employees is different from private employees and they are most at risk as Clinton neo-liberals and Republicans try to privatize SS Trust.  That was what Heather Mizeur was trying to do------change the Maryland practice of payroll contributions that went to Federal SS Trust-----to one that is privatized into the stock market. 

Keep in mind nobody explained to state and county/city employees that all of this was about privatization----and especially those state and county/city employees identified as non-SS participation employees----police and fire department are usually that category for example.  The Mayor of Baltimore simply forced police and fire to restructure their benefits to the stock market and the Maryland Assembly is moving to end its contributions to Federal SS Trust they know is also being privatized.

The article below is long and boring----please glance through just to understand how this Social Security Trust issue plays with all citizens:

Introduction to State and Local Coverage and Section 218


1.  What is the Social Security Act of 1935?
On August 14, 1935, Congress voted into legislation the Social Security Act of 1935.  This legislation established a permanent old-age pension system in the United States through employer and employee contributions.  These contributions are collected through the Social Security payroll tax.   The original legislation did not cover State and local government employees due to constitutional questions regarding the authority to impose taxes on the States.

2.  How did the Social Security Act of 1935 affect State and local government employees?
The Social Security Act of 1935 did not cover State and local government employees.   This caused a problem because many public employees did not participate in public retirement systems equivalent to Social Security.  An amendment of the Act was enacted in 1950, Section 218, extending coverage to State and local employees.

3.  What is Section 218 of the Act?
In 1950, Congress enacted Section 218 of the Social Security Act.  This allowed Social Security coverage to be extended to the State and local government employees who were not covered by an alternative retirement system.  The coverage was available at the request of the State, through an agreement signed by the State and SSA.  These agreements are referred to as 218 Agreements, Federal-State agreements, modifications, or voluntary agreements (because the coverage is voluntarily requested by the State).  Later, in 1954, Amendments were made to the Act allowing State and local workers who were members of a retirement system (except police officers or fire fighters) to also be covered under section 218 Agreements, provided coverage was authorized by the State and approved through a voluntary coverage referendum.

4.  What is a 218 Agreement?
A Section 218 Agreement is a document signed by the State and SSA extending Social Security and Medicare or Medicare-only coverage on a voluntary basis to the State and local employees of that State.  Each State has an agreement with SSA and most originated in the early 1950’s.  When States want to cover additional State or local government employees they do so by means of a “modification” to the original agreement. Almost all States continue, to this day, to extend coverage through modifications.
The Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also have 218 Agreements with SSA.  Additionally, interstate instrumentalities can enter into 218 Agreements.

5.  What happens to State and local government employees who do not participate in Social Security?
State and local government employees who do not participate in Social Security, either through voluntary or mandatory coverage, do not have Social Security taxes removed from their paychecks.  Therefore, they are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits based on that employment.  If such employees later contribute to Social Security via a subsequent coverage agreement or mandatory coverage, their eligibility to benefits, and the amount of those benefits, would reflect only the time that they were properly covered. 

6.  Who is the State Administrator?
In order to effectively implement coverage at the State level, SSA, through regulation 20 C.F.R. §404.1204, requires that each State designate a State Social Security Administrator.  The state administrator is responsible for administering all aspects of Section 218 coverage, including interpreting its provisions, and insuring proper application of Social Security coverage to all State and political subdivision employees. 

7.  Is there a difference in Social Security taxes for government employees and private employees?
When the Social Security Act was modified by Section 218, there were two separate tax processes for private and government employees.  Private employee contributing to the Social Security tax paid “FICA” taxes; whereas government, i.e., State and local government, employees did not pay FICA taxes, but submitted “contributions” to the Social Security program. 
When Section 218 was added to the Act in 1951, SSA was designated to administer its tax collection provisions much in the same manner that IRS administered FICA tax provisions.  However, SSA considered each State liable for payment of the Social Security contributions on all covered employees, including local governments, because the Section 218 Agreement for Social Security coverage was between the State and SSA, not SSA and the employer.  Therefore, while each private employer sent FICA taxes directly to the IRS, government employers with employees covered under a Section 218 Agreement sent Social Security “contributions” directly to the state administrator.  The state Administrator then paid the Social Security contributions directly to an SSA account at the Federal Reserve Bank.  The separate Social Security tax process for private and public employers existed for almost 40 years.
Then, in 1987, the Act and the Code were changed and taxes due pursuant to Section 218 Agreements were designated as FICA taxes.  Public employers became responsible for withholding and remitting FICA taxes in the same manner as private employers and IRS assumed oversight authority.

8.  What additional changes have been made to Section 218 coverage since it began?
Significant legislative changes have been made affecting State and local coverage since it began in 1951.   Some changes include:
  • The 1954 Social Security Amendments expanded the Act to allow States to extend Social Security coverage to State and local government employees who were members of public retirement system (except police officers and firefighters); provided coverage was authorized by the State and approved through a voluntary referendum of all eligible retirement system members.
  • In 1956, the Act was amended to authorize certain States to divide retirement systems into two separate groups—those who desired coverage and those who did not. The 1956 Act also authorized certain States to extend Social Security coverage to police officers and firefighters covered by a retirement system.
  • Beginning July 1, 1966, employees covered for Social Security under a Section 218 Agreement are automatically covered for Medicare.
  • The 1983 Amendments included provisions preventing States from terminating Social Security coverage obtained under an agreement, effective April 20, 1983.  Therefore, even though Social Security coverage is voluntarily obtained, it is permanent once in place.
  • The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) imposed mandatory Medicare-only coverage on State and Local employees.  All employees, with certain exceptions, hired after March 31 1986, are covered for Medicare under section 210(p) of the Act (Medicare Qualified Government Employment).  Employees covered for Social Security under a Section 218 Agreement have Medicare coverage as a part of Social Security, therefore they are excluded from mandatory Medicare.  However, COBRA 85 also contained a provision allowing States to obtain Medicare-only coverage for employees hired before April 1, 1986 who are not covered under an Agreement.   Authority for Medicare-only tax administration was placed in the Code [26 U.S.C.  3121(u)(2)(C)]  as the responsibility of IRS.
  • The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (OBRA 86) made dramatic changes to Section 218 of the Act.  All responsibilities related to tax administration and oversight were removed from the section and from SSA’s authority for the years after 1986. SSA retained tax responsibility for all years prior to 1987.  OBRA 86, at the same time, amended the Code to designate Social Security taxes due pursuant to section 218 agreements as FICA taxes, thereby transferring tax authority to IRS.  Public employers became responsible for withholding and remitting these taxes in the same manner as private employers.
  • The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA 89) amended the Act to allow SSA to correct an individual’s earnings record at any time when the employer has reported less than the correct amount.
  • The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) imposed mandatory Social Security coverage on  State and local government employees beginning July 2, 1991 who are not (1) already covered for Social Security under an agreement, or (2) members of a retirement system which meets certain Treasury regulations or requirements.  This provision is intended to ensure that all public employees have some type of retirement protection, either obtained as part of Social Security or through a plan offered by the employer.  OBRA 90 also amended the Code to apply FICA taxes to mandatorily covered employment.  An important difference between mandatory Social Security coverage and voluntary Social Security coverage obtained through a Section 218 agreement is that mandatory Social Security coverage for employees terminates when they become members of a retirement system meeting Treasury regulation requirements.  Social Security coverage obtained under a Section 218 agreement cannot be terminated, regardless of retirement system membership status.
  • The Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 established the SSA as an independent agency, effective March 31, 1995. This Act also increased the FICA exclusion amount for election workers from $100 to any amount less than the threshold amount mandated by law in a calendar year. (To verify the current year amount, see the SSA website.) States were authorized to amend their Section 218 Agreements to increase the FICA exclusion amount for election workers to a statutorily mandated threshold. The Act also amended Section 218 of the Act to allow all States the option to extend Social Security and Medicare coverage to police officers and firefighters who participate in a public retirement system. (Under previous law, only 23 States were specifically authorized to do so.)
  • Public Law 105-277 provided a 3-month period for States to modify their Section 218 Agreements to exclude from coverage services performed by students. This provision was effective July 1, 2000, for States that exercised the option to take this exclusion.

9.  How have government employers been affected by the changes occurring since 1950?
Due to the changes in coverage, some public employers may be unaware of their employees’ coverage status.  The following factors have contributed to this dilemma:
  • For over 30 years, from 1951 to 1982, it was possible for States to terminate coverage previously obtained under an agreement; terminating coverage was not allowed after 1982.  This led to a belief, still existing among some government employers, that Social Security coverage for government employees is optional.  However, Social Security coverage is required, absent a qualified retirement system.
  • There is a unique relationship between Social Security coverage and retirement system coverage.  Through Section 218 Agreements, retirement system groups can be covered for Social Security (e.g., all positions in a State Teachers’ Retirement System or all positions under a county pension plan). In situations were coverage is obtained for retirement system coverage groups, employers may not always be aware of their employees eligibility in that system, which could lead to reporting errors.
  • Unlike Social Security coverage for private industry employees, there are circumstances under which coverage for government employees discontinues.   These circumstances depend on how the coverage was originally obtained.  Coverage obtained pursuant to a Section 218 Agreement (regardless of retirement system membership) cannot be terminated as of 1983.  However, mandatory Social Security coverage stops when the employee becomes a member of a qualifying retirement system meeting.  Conversely, mandatory Medicare-only coverage cannot be terminated.
  • Many small government employers do not have personnel or payroll staffs.  In this situation, wage reporting functions may be performed by individuals with little or no knowledge of SSA or IRS requirements.  Even experienced personnel or payroll staffs make mistakes due to the complexity of the coverage issue. When government employers began to pay FICA taxes directly to IRS in 1987, many States reduced the role of the State Administrator.  In some States, despite SSA regulations, State Administrator functions were completely abolished. During the years that SSA had oversight authority for correct reporting of Social Security contributions; both SSA and State Administrators audited the correctness of employer reports.  IRS did not place special emphasis on auditing government employers until recently.
_________________________________________

Think of how hard teachers and other public employees are fighting these forced cuts to their benefits------and then understand they may be people not connected to SS Trust and we need to protect them from lost retirement.

Those people tied to pensions that are public employees not connected to our Federal Social Security Trust are now being literally held hostage in this fight over cuts in pensions vs saving our Social Security Trusts.  Those not paying into the SS Trust obviously are not as invested in protecting it although they must have family members that do depend on it.  As you see here-----Federal employees------teachers-----police and fire fighters----religious order----may not be connected to receiving SS----but have been promised some other means of retirement that is now under attack.

This may be why some  public sector unions stay with the most raging of Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals for so long.

This is the point------as you watch global pols attempt to gut these American citizens and their retirements-----


-YOU KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO DO THE SAME WITH OUR FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY----

GET RID OF GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS!



Groups That Do Not Pay Into the Social Security System

by William Pirraglia, Demand Media


Since 1983, almost all groups in the United States contribute to the Social Security system. Before 1983, members of Congress, the President and Vice President and all federal employees were exempt from Social Security taxes and benefits. Currently, the only prominent groups that do not participate in the Social Security system are railroad workers, covered by the Railroad Retirement Board, an independent agency of the U.S. government, some religious personnel and state and local government employees with their own retirement systems.

Railroad Retirement Board

Along with retirement benefits, the Railroad Retirement Board offers survivor benefits, unemployment, sickness and disability payments for railroad employees and their families. Created in 1935, as was Social Security, the Railroad Retirement Board is dedicated only to serving U.S. railroad employees for social insurance programs. Although an independent federal agency, the Railroad Retirement Board does have some administrative duties within the Social Security Act for some benefit money and interfaces with Social Security to administer retired railroad employees' Medicare insurance.


Federal Employees

Although all federal employees hired since Jan. 1, 1984, pay into the Social Security system, those hired before that date can still be covered by the Civil Service Retirement System, created in 1920, before the current Social Security system existed. The 1983 law mandating Social Security coverage for federal employees allowed this group to make a one-time choice to stay in the Civil Service Retirement System or move to Social Security. The law also provides that those federal employees originally hired before Jan. 1, 1984, left government service and rehired thereafter must participate in the Social Security system.



State and Local Employees

Many state and local government employees still do not pay into Social Security. These groups are covered by other retirement plans. For example, teachers and educators in Texas are covered by the Texas Retirement System, but can also access some Social Security benefits. However, they are also subject to the Government Pension Offset, which reduces some Social Security benefits they otherwise could collect. Spousal and widow or widower benefits are also restricted. Almost one-quarter of the nation's state and local government employees remain exempt from Social Security.



Police and Firefighters

Some state or local police personnel and firefighters are exempt from Social Security, having retirement pensions funded -- sometimes insufficiently funded -- by the states, cities, towns or counties for which they work. Some states, such as Rhode Island, have encountered financial problems with their self-insured retirement systems because of unfunded liabilities and pension fund losses. Even those states that have funding problems cannot easily join the Social Security system; making lump sum payments for new Social Security members is a challenge some local governments cannot meet.



Clergy and Religious Orders

Members of the clergy and religious orders not taking a vow of poverty can elect to participate or not participate in Social Security benefits. Churches and church-related organizations can also elect not to include their employees in Social Security coverage since 1984 regulations were enacted.

___________________________________________


You can see why the Chicago Teacher's Union is the strongest in protesting -------it is for the children but it is for their retirement as well--------Rahm Emanuel and global pols paint these teachers as SELFISH, NOT THINKING OF THE STUDENTS NEEDING THAT PENSION REVENUE FOR SCHOOLS-----thinking only of themselves. This is the same for police and fire fighters.............................................


Today, nine out of 10 Americans age 65 and older depend on Social Security benefits to lead a

comfortable and secure retirement.


Among middle-class Americans, Social Security makes up more

than 40 percent of an individual retiree’s income. And yet not all workers can participate in Social
Security, a fact few people realize.
While the system includes all private sector workers, many local
and state government employees lack the retirement and social
safety net offered by Social Security. Teachers constitute one of the
largest groups of uncovered workers. Nationwide, approximately
1.2 million teachers (about 40 percent of all public K–12 teachers)
are not covered.

Those teachers are concentrated in 15 states--

Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode

Island, and Texas—and the District of Columbia, where many or all
public school teachers neither pay into nor receive benefits from the system. They do not have the
same essential income protection in their old age as nearly every other American worker does.


________________________________________________

You can see yet again------the drive to privatize Social Security comes from Republican public policy groups----it has since SS Trust was created.  Yet, Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are the ones pushing just as hard as Republicans to privatize SS ------this is how you know your pol is not a Democrat------

ALL MARYLAND POLS ARE CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS OR BUSH NEO-CONS AND ARE WORKING TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.


The article below does state exactly why the 'cap' on contributing to Social Security set at $100,000 should be removed as is the social Democratic stance of Bernie Sanders--------the rich live longer so should pay according to what they earn.  Republicans and Clinton neo-liberals protecting the rich will say this is the reason PRIVATIZING SS IS A BIG BOOST FOR THE POOR.

Social Security Choice Paper No. 4


Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor


By Michael D. Tanner
July 26, 1996
Executive Summary
Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security.
By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor’s retirement needs.
In addition, the progressivity of Social Security is undermined by differences in life expectancy. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive more total Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. In a privatized system, an individual’s benefits would not be dependent on life expectancy. Individuals would have a property right in their benefits. Any benefits remaining at their deaths would become part of their estates, inherited by their heirs.
Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.
For those reasons, Social Security privatization should be viewed as a big boost to America’s poor.
0 Comments

January 29th, 2016

1/29/2016

0 Comments

 
AS CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS ARE ALL SHOUTING THEY ARE FIGHTING TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY----MONTHLY CHECKS ARE BEING EATEN AWAY WITH MORE AND MORE COSTS AND NO COLA INCREASES.


I stated last post the FED has been allowed to manipulate our inflation and interest rates these several years to the detriment of our public Trusts like Medicare and Veteran's benefits----and to the benefit of the rich who saw wealth soar with these policies.  Congress and the President could have shouted against this FED policy----they could have taken to court that the FED was acting against its mission and outside it scope of authority, but they were silent because they are Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals working for that Wall Street wealth.


For those not knowing the history of the COLA debate---Congress is using measures of cost to American people that are no longer relative to most American people's lives and certainly not seniors effected the most.  The COLA for decades is based more on costs for businesses than individuals and that is why oil/gas factors into COLA so much----cost of production of goods is effected by cost of fuel for corporate manufacturing for example.  These few decades have been a finance and service economy----not industrial so this calculation of COLA has been a bad one for decades and we have shouted to change it Cost of Living to reflect health care, child care, food, and home heating fuels like natural gas.

THE SUPER-MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WITH OBAMA SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT IN 2009 ------AS THEY WORKED SOLELY ON 'SAVING THE WALL STREET BANKS'.  NOW, THEY SAY THE REPUBLICANS ARE KEEPING THEM FROM MAKING THIS VITAL CHANGE.


So, the FED calculates COLA on fuel costs factoring in rate of inflation which they manipulated to zero and 1% for years------and VOILA-----seniors and veterans have lost as much as a few hundred dollars a month in COLA increases to SS and VET benefits.  That is a lot of money to people often living simply already and it was all unnecessary.

Bad news for retirees: No Social Security cost-of-living increase, higher medical costs for many


By Lisa Rein October 15, 2015
Washington Post

Tens of millions of seniors will see no annual cost-of-living adjustment in their Social Security checks in 2016, the government said Thursday, unwelcome news that also will flatten benefit payments for retired federal workers and service members.
It is only the third time in 40 years — all of them during the Obama administration — that the Social Security Administration has not increased its payments. The raises are tied to the consumer price index (CPI).
About 65 million retired and disabled workers, spouses and children collect Social Security benefits every month, the equivalent of about 1 in 4 households. Another 15 million are disabled veterans, federal retirees and their survivors, and those on Supplemental Security Income, the disability program for the poor.
The raises are tied to the consumer price index (CPI), which has been flat because of lower gasoline prices.
[The retirement costs that are rising faster than Social Security benefits]

The lack of a raise triggers other bad news for retirees: Higher medical costs.
Most Americans have their outpatient care premiums for Medicare Part B deducted directly from their Social Security checks, and the annual cost-of-living increase usually covers any increase to premiums. When it doesn’t, a longstanding “hold harmless” law protects about 70 percent of seniors from having their Social Security payments reduced.
But that leaves about 30 percent of Americans on Medicare to cover a hike to premiums that otherwise would be spread across everyone. That group includes people new to Medicare, federal retirees who don’t receive Social Security payments and about 3.1 million people with higher incomes, that is, those making more than $85,000.

Their premiums could rise by 52 percent, by about $54 a month to $159, according to calculations earlier this year by the Medicare Trustees, and more for those with higher incomes.
[Many federal retirees face higher Medicare premiums]
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration “is aware of this, frankly, unintended policy consequence resulting from the formula for calculating cost of living adjustments. And so we’re aware of this problem and it is something that we’re concerned about.”

_________________________________________________

We have spoken much about the FED manipulation of interest and inflation rates so I won't go into this now-----I will say this-----gas prices were high much of these several years. It is only because of a Presidential election year and a flooding of the US market natural gas competing with US oil that the gas prices are so low. Watch as they rise soon after this 2016 election. The REAL inflation rate felt by all Americans was the same 3-5% and it is now actually higher as food, health care, gas was high, education, rents and mortgages-----all had soaring inflation. Remember, the major driver of this bad COLA calculation is oil/gas-----and those prices were high up until last year. So the FED manipulated inflation rates to zero since 2009 and Bernanke killing our SS and VET benefit COLAs. We all know how much our goods and services have soared these several years.  A social Democrat in Congress would have been shouting against this FED manipulation nationally and educating in their districts-----but Clinton Wall Street global corporate pols work for that wealth and corporate power.


'But the COLA will be zero in 2016 as prices have actually dropped from a year ago according to the inflation measure used for the COLA. Lower gas prices are the reason for the lack of inflation. Other prices measured by the inflation index would have to have gone up quite a bit in the last month and there is no indication that has occurred'.

CPI-----is the model used for decades too long-----CPI----E is a model that takes into consideration Cost of Living for seniors but the model needs to change for everyone.


Your COLA Increase in 2016 Will Be: Zero
By Ralph Smith • October 12, 2015 •

It won’t be official until October 15th but, for the third time in the past 40 years, federal retirees, Social Security recipients and others that normally benefit from an annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) will not receive an annual increase in their income. There were also no COLA increases in 2010 and 2011.

(See What Happened to My COLA for 2010? and What About Your 2011 COLA? Forget About It!)



As determined by the relevant data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI-W) in October 2014, federal retirees generally received a 1.7 percent COLA to their civil service annuities beginning in January 2015. Social Security benefits and military retirement annuities increased by the same amount.
The Consumer Price Index figure that is used to determine the annual COLA figure will be announced later this week. But the COLA will be zero in 2016 as prices have actually dropped from a year ago according to the inflation measure used for the COLA. Lower gas prices are the reason for the lack of inflation. Other prices measured by the inflation index would have to have gone up quite a bit in the last month and there is no indication that has occurred.
The 2016 COLA is determined by comparing the average of the July, August and September 2015 index figures to the average of the same months (the third quarter) from 2014. The percentage increase, if there is any increase, determines the COLA for the coming year. If inflation does not occur according to the government index that is used, the automatic increase does not occur.
As most readers know by now, an increase in health insurance costs for next year has already been announced. In fact, the increase in health insurance premiums will be the largest increase in five years.
As an overall average, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has announced the average premium increase in health insurance will be 6.4 percent in 2015. The average increase for participants, however, will be increasing 7.4 percent.
Some federal retirees will opt for the self plus one insurance plan that will be available for the first time in 2016 but, even with this change, many will find their actual health insurance costs will still be higher than last year despite the new option. In addition, for at least some plans, deductibles and co-pays may also be going up under the 2016 health insurance plans.
Increases in health insurance costs are not new, but they often impact older, retired people more than younger ones. Some readers have commented that the CPI used for determining COLA increases for retirees is not accurate because it does not reflect the actual costs or spending habits of older Americans.
In fact, there is a basis for this concern. An index has been developed with different weighting for expenses, such as medical expenses, as elderly people spend more on health care than younger consumers. The index is called the Consumer Price Index–Elderly (CPI-E). The CPI-E has been under review by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for about three decades but it is still considered an experimental program.
Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA) has re-introduced H.R. 3351, the CPI-E Act of 2015, which would adopt a measure of inflation more tailored to the costs of older Americans but, with the massive national debt that is increasing by hundreds of billions each year, there will not be a rush in Congress to increase federal spending.
Under the regular consumer price index, medical care is not given as much weight as many other types of expenses. Retirees are more likely to be going to a doctor or a hospital than getting a college education, so the price index does not necessarily reflect your real expenses if you are retired.
As noted in a recent article by Michael Wald, “Individuals ages 65 and older allocate 13 percent of their spending toward health care costs compared to the 5 percent allocated by the general public. COLAs would be larger using the CPI-E and would more accurately reflect seniors’ real costs.” (See Could There Be a Higher Annuity in Your Future?)
There is also a chance that a number of federal retirees who are Medicare beneficiaries will be paying an inordinate amount for a premium increase that otherwise would be limited to a smaller number of beneficiaries than would normally help pay for an increase in expenses. Those who would pay the higher premiums include 2.8 million new beneficiaries, 1.6 million whose premiums aren’t deducted from their Social Security payments and 3.1 million people with higher incomes. In effect, this means that some federal retirees may get hit with higher premiums. As noted in a recent article, “Starting in January, most retirees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), who also are enrolled in Medicare Part B, will see a 52% jump in their monthly Medicare premiums due to rules that determine increases in monthly Social Security benefits and Part B premiums.” (See Medicare Part B Premiums Are Scheduled to Rise 52% in January) Legislation has been introduced in Congress to mitigate this increase but, as of this writing, it is not known if this legislation will pass.
The reality is that federal retirees and Social Security recipients, among others, will not be receiving a cost of living adjustment in 2016. Be sure to plan your budget accordingly as your actual expenses will still be going up.

__________________________________________________

I want to stay with this issue of inflation today because it shows that even as Clinton neo-liberals are posing progressive by pushing the change in calculation of COLA that we need-----they sat and allowed the FED to illegally manipulate that inflation and would do it regardless of COLA calculation model.  If we are going to truly get that COLA calculation model changed ----WE NEED TO GET RID OF CLINTON/OBAMA WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS.

This is a confusing issue but if you take time to read and think of the differences and how much it is costing the American people in their personal wealth----you will see how important this issue is to everyone. 

GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND WALL STREET ARE SEEING THEIR WEALTH SOAR WITH THIS FED INFLATION AND INTEREST RATE MANIPULATION.


'Which means you can have official inflation at a low level (or even falling for certain items), while the amount you actually spend out of your very real pocket is rising! And thus the debate'.



Is the Government Lying to Us About Inflation? Yes!


John Mauldin03/27/2013  Financial Sense


In today’s Outside the Box, Gary D. Halbert (my old and very dear friend and former business partner of many years) reminds us about a few significant facts concerning the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that mainstream economists and the media tend to ignore. The central question is whether the CPI is really indicative of the actual inflation rate. Not likely, says Gary, since the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which compiles the CPI, has engaged in methodological shenanigans over the past couple decades (as has been well documented by John Williams of ShadowStats, among others).

The upshot of all their monkeying with the numbers is that the official rate of inflation may be two to four times lower than the actual rate (which is rather convenient if you’re a government bureaucrat trying to hold down interest costs and Social Security payments).

These changes are hotly debated in academic circles. There are many economists who agree with the changes and can show with their models that inflation is low. That is the currently accepted wisdom, or what passes for it. The problem is that inflation only shows up, as one person put it, in the things we actually buy. If your main costs are food, energy, education, and healthcare (ring any bells?), then inflation is a great deal higher than 2%. Other items are actually falling in price. It comes down to the mix of items in the calculations and whether you buy into the concepts of substitution (if beef gets too expensive we buy hamburger rather than steak) and “hedonics,” which says that prices of products drop over time as quality and manufacturing efficiency improve, so the calculation of inflation should take this into account.
Which means you can have official inflation at a low level (or even falling for certain items), while the amount you actually spend out of your very real pocket is rising! And thus the debate.
Having refreshed us on the basic techniques of CPI massage, Gary turns to food and energy, which the BLS includes in “headline CPI” but omits from “core CPI.” He points out that while headline CPI jumped an unexpected 0.7% in February, core CPI rose only 0.2%. That is, food and energy price increases accounted for more than 70% of the rise. “Not good for the economy,” he notes.
And of course, this is all bad news for unwary investors, since
Those who believe that inflation is only 2%, when it may be 5-8%, may be making investment decisions that are almost guaranteed to erode the purchasing power of their money over time. This is especially true with low-yielding investments such as CDs, Treasuries, etc.
Gary wraps up by taking a look at “chained CPI,” which he explains as follows:
[C]hained CPI assumes that when prices rise, consumers will resort to entirely different products, rather than just seeking a cheaper brand. For example, if beef prices rise, chained CPI would assume that consumers might opt for chicken to save money.
The chained CPI debate is raging as we speak: I got an email from the AARP this morning, urging me to tell my Senators to say no to chained CPI being used to calculate Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) – sounds like they may vote today (Friday) on a bill to do just that. But as Gary points out, we either calculate benefits using chained CPI – which, yes, is tough on those living on a fixed income – or we eliminate the cap on salary subject to Social Security taxation (that is, we raise taxes). As Gary says, “Either way, somebody’s got to pay, and it might end up being a little [of] both.”


______________________________________________

I cannot copy the graphs that are great-----but this shows how since Clinton/Bush/Obama the Cost of Living has been calculated using methods from before 1980-----no longer relevant to today ----and these stats have been skewed far more with Bernanke since 2009----all of this matters because we elect Democrats to protect against these manipulations all designed to move wealth to the top and take away wealth from citizens. The manipulation that brings inflation down to zero does not even follow this pre-1980 model----it is crony and illegal. Take a look at this article for the graphs and you see what allowing a global neo-liberal take control of a social Democratic Party leads to. All of this is altered as well when the unemployment rate is allowed to be called 5% when it is 35% -----all this factors into CPI and inflation.

THE BOTTOM LINE-----THIS IS WHY SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' BENEFIT COLAS HAVE BEEN ZERO AND 1% FOR THESE SEVERAL YEARS.

Clinton neo-liberals are trying as hard as they can to privatize SS along with Republicans so then all of the increases in SS payments will come from the stock market and we all know where that leads. While Clinton neo-liberals are shouting for CPI-E-----the better COLA-----they are pushing to move SS into the stock market.


Shadow Government Statistics.

Alternate Inflation Charts

The CPI chart on the home page reflects our estimate of inflation for today as if it were calculated the same way it was in 1990. The CPI on the Alternate Data Series tab here reflects the CPI as if it were calculated using the methodologies in place in 1980. In general terms, methodological shifts in government reporting have depressed reported inflation, moving the concept of the CPI away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living.

CPI Year-to-Year Growth

The CPI-U (consumer price index) is the broadest measure of consumer price inflation for goods and services published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

While the headline number usually is the seasonally-adjusted month-to-month change, the formal CPI is reported on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, with annual inflation measured in terms of year-to-year percent change in the price index.

In the charts to the right we show two SGS-Alternate CPI estimates: One based on the pre-1990 official methodology for computing the CPI-U, and the other based on the methodology which was employed prior to 1980.

Please note: Our Data Download is currently only providing the 1980-Based numbers, but 1990-Based numbers will be introduced shortly.


_____________________________________________

I'll end for now on this look at one SS issue (FED manipulations and COLA) that is not spoken of by any Democratic pol at any level ----yet they will shout ----we fight for SS every election.  This COLA issue is the same for Veterans as well.  The point----global pols think they need to bring SS payments down because they have altered over and over and over when the SS Trust is going to be depleted----remember when I shared Reagan tripling our payroll taxes in the 1980s just so that SS Trust would be flush for the long term?  The SS Trust has been looted and we don't move SS payments down -----we fight to get them back to where they need to be and make that SS Trust solvent through the 21 century with just minor adjustments.

'By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly'.
"For many elderly, they don't feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. "Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses."


By CBSNews AP August 23, 2009, 11:18 AMSocial Security Checks Shrink for Millions

Blank US Social Security checks over social card

Millions of older people will face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.

The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.


By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

"I will promise you, they count on that COLA," said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal."

Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.


Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.

"For many elderly, they don't feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. "Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses."

About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.

More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.

Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.

There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.

Kennelly's group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn't call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.

The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.

But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.

Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn't get an increase when inflation is negative. They note that recipients got a big increase in January - after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government's economic stimulus package.

"Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt," said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want."

Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems. The retirement program is projected to start paying out more money than it receives in 2016. Without changes, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, according to the Social Security trustees' annual report this year.

OH, REALLY????


President Barack Obama has said he would like tackle Social Security next year, after Congress finishes work on health care, climate change and new financial regulations.

Lawmakers are preoccupied by health care, making it difficult to address other tough issues. Advocates for older people hope their efforts will get a boost in October, when the Social Security Administration officially announces that there will not be an increase in benefits next year.

"I think a lot of seniors do not know what's coming down the pike, and I believe that when they hear that, they're going to be upset," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is working on a proposal for one-time payments for Social Security recipients.

"It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back," he said.

0 Comments

January 28th, 2016

1/28/2016

0 Comments

 
I will be in meetings all day today and will be back on Friday with the policy discussion on Social Security, Medicare, and our Veteran's Benefit Trusts.

   CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE

            FIRST 90 DAYS

Below I list the priorities of my first days in office.  Creating committees does not mean we will not be installing the structures for each of these goals throughout these 90 days----it means we will solidify the groups of community leaders strongest in each area and by extension identify people in each community wanting to be part of these goals.


1.  Create a committee to reform and rebuild Baltimore Police Department and Criminal Justice System and public justice system.  The key to keeping both police officers and citizens safe and protected is to ensure citizens feel they have rights, a voice, and a pathway to justice in all that occurs in the communities.

2.  Create a committee to identify all revenue sources coming to and going out of Baltimore City Hall.  We will audit and review existing contracts, Federal and state government funding, and build a system of oversight and accountability into every Baltimore City agency with the goal of protecting funds that would go to ALL communities in development and services.

3.  Create a committee to reform and rebuild the Baltimore Housing Authority to ensure the housing needs for ALL citizens are met; that development and gentrification include REAL mixed-income opportunities that will remain protected; that Federal HUD and community development funds go where Federal law requires as the definition of Enterprise Zone means to lift citizens in communities as small business owners and homeowners.

4.  Create a committee to rebuild Baltimore's local economy driven by surrounding community development including demolition, hauling away, rehabbing houses, and creating large green public space as central to a local food economy IN EACH COMMUNITY.  Rebuilding public institutions like public schools, public health clinics, public recreation/community centers as the base for community health and stability and a spring board to creating small business to augment these services.





0 Comments

January 27th, 2016

1/27/2016

0 Comments

 
I will segue from media to our national public Trusts-----Social Security, Medicare, and our Veteran's Administration benefits.  I wanted to show yesterday how a captured national and local media has been allowing Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals pose progressive using social democratic policy issues with no intentions of doing what they say-----ergo, privatized Social Security.

Media will use words like EXPANDED SOCIAL SECURITY------and 'REMOVING CAPS' in moving revenue to Social Security-----but they deliberately confuse the issue between the social Democratic intention of keeping Social Security Trust public and solvent------vs the Clinton/Obama neo-liberal goal of privatizing it away and sticking Americans into yet another Wall Street plan that simply allows Wall Street to use what is a few trillion dollars of our Social Security Trust for leverage.   Wall Street and the FED have been using it anyway since Reagan started sending our SS Trust to the US Treasury instead of leaving it in its Trust----

BUT THAT IS NOT HOW IT HAS EVER BEEN USED SINCE ITS INCEPTION AS PART OF FDR'S NEW DEAL.  A REAL DEMOCRAT WOULD HAVE REVERSED THIS---BUT WE ALLOWED ANOTHER NEO-LIBERAL IN CLINTON BE ELECTED AS A DEMOCRAT-----WANTING TO END SOCIAL SECURITY AS REPUBLICANS DO.


Below you see the REAL social Democratic stance on expanded Social Security-----Obama and Warren with Republicans are building the structure to privatize SS.


'To shore up Social Security's finances, Sen. Sanders' plan would eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions for earnings above $250,000 a year. It would also expand the system's revenue base to include high-income households' unearned income. Together, these measures would simply ensure that high-income households contribute to Social Security on all of their income at the same rate as the typical worker does.
To ease the retirement income crisis, it would expand benefits by:


  • Increasing Social Security benefits by about $65 a month for most recipients
  • Increasing cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients by basing them on an index that better reflects the living costs of seniors (the CPI-E)
  • Providing a minimum Social Security benefit to significantly reduce the senior poverty rate'


Any justice organization and especially justice organizations tied to seniors would have shouted a few years ago when Obama installed Bush's SS privatization policies with myRA-----did you hear AARP shouting?  That is because AARP is now a national corporation using senior issues to profit----it is no longer a justice organization.  Every time media introduced the idea of myRA-----the Fairness Doctrine would have had someone telling you----

WAKE UP----CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS ARE WORKING WITH REPUBLICANS TO END SOCIAL SECURITY.  ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLS ARE CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS OR BUSH/HOPKINS NEO-CONS.

ThinkProgress is a Clinton neo-liberal outlet and if you see all of the media hype----they have Warren as the champion of main street calling for expanded Social Security.  Note that Bernie Sanders was calling for this BEFORE Warren and Bernie outlines this expansion as all social Democrats do-----protect SS Trust as it is----and expand revenue contributions by lifting the cap on affluent individuals to stabilize and allow SS Trust to last most of this century. When Bernie shouted that social Democratic issue----then all of the Clinton neo-liberal media outlets had Warren out there-----being populist------using the right words-----'expanded and capped'----but she and the Clinton neo-liberals in Congress posing progressive all have expanding Obama's myRA as a goal.

THERE ARE NO SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC MEDIA IN MAIN STREAM MEDIA EDUCATING AS TO WHY WARREN IS PROGRESSIVE POSING AND THIS IS HOW CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS HAVE FOOLED SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC VOTERS EVERY ELECTION----



'Working-age Americans are currently $6.6 trillion short of what they’ll need to have saved in order to maintain the standard of living in retirement — an amount that is larger than the entire economy of Japan — according to Warren'.


Economy

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Calls For Expanding Social Security


by Alan Pyke Nov 19, 2013 8:56 am

American values demand that Congress boost retirement benefits rather than shrinking them to satisfy deficit hawks, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said on the Senate floor Monday afternoon. “We should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits, not cutting them,” Warren said.




Warren left the policy details for the end, focusing instead on history to show that the experience of being an American worker has gotten ever harder while providing less and less economic security. When wages flattened out and life got more expensive in the 1970s, “Working families didn’t ask for a bailout,” Warren said. “They rolled up their sleeves and sent both parents into the workforce. But that meant higher childcare costs, a second car, and higher taxes. So they tightened their belts more, cutting spending wherever they could.” As a result, she noted, working families have less to spend (adjusting for inflation) than they did a few decades ago, leaving less ability to include retirement savings in their budgets.
As economic security faded for working Americans, a secure retirement also grew more elusive. Employers started to back off pension promises, and the shift from classic pensions to 401(k) investment plans “that leave the retiree at the mercy of a market that rises and falls” meant that Social Security became a more and more crucial pillar of workers’ retirement planning, Warren said. Compared to classic pensions, which provide a fixed retirement income, 401(k)-style plans reduce retirement income for about a quarter of all participants. The shift to 401(k)s has made inequality worse over recent decades because they favor the wealthy, and the fees investment firms charge to manage the plans gobble up about a third of total returns over the course of the typical participant’s career. Almost two-thirds of the workforce is currently racking up debt faster than retirement savings, and even before the recession such “debt savers” made up nearly half of all workers.
“Add all of this up – the dramatic decline in individual savings and the dramatic decline of guaranteed retirement benefits and employer support in return for a lifetime of work – and we’re left with a retirement crisis,” Warren said.
If “crisis” seems like a strong word, consider that more than half of the people in the country are currently projected to see a significant drop in their standard of living once they retire. Working-age Americans are currently $6.6 trillion short of what they’ll need to have saved in order to maintain the standard of living in retirement — an amount that is larger than the entire economy of Japan — according to Warren.
Despite that crisis, Social Security has been repeatedly threatened with reductions in budget negotiations over the past three years, with cuts usually coming in the form of a change in the formula used to calculate benefit levels. Warren rejected that proposal, calling instead for shifting to a formula progressives favor for measuring senior citizens’ cost of living that “would generally increase benefits for our retirees, not cut them.”
“The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong,” she said.
_____________________________________________
I looked all over the progressive posing Clinton neo-liberal media outlets-------the ones that claim Warren is our populist leader and not one of them explains the real goal of this Clinton neo-liberal Congressional SS policy led by Warren and a very conservative West Virginia Manchin.

Financial media outlets do explain the goal because the intent of Warren and these Clinton neo-liberals is to do what Bush and Republicans have tried for decades-----PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.

While Bernie Sanders as a REAL social Democrat outlines his intent to do what Americans really want done-----KEEP SOCIAL SECURITY AS A PUBLIC TRUST----BUT LIFT THE PAYROLL CAP ON AFFLUENT TO ADD REVENUE TO THE TRUST-----Clinton neo-liberal outlets are lying and filling the press with Warren as having the right answer.  Since Warren supports Hillary----now the media will promote Hillary as supporting Expanded Social Security just like Bernie----only they are privatizing it.


ALL OF THIS IS BEING DONE BECAUSE MEDIA NO LONGER HAS FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WITH AN FCC MAKING SURE ALL POLITICAL VIEWS ARE HEARD.



'It would be better, as Biggs proposes, to shift gradually to a new system that separates the two functions of Social Security. People joining the workforce now should be promised a flat universal retirement benefit set at a level that keeps all seniors out of poverty. At the same time, they should be given the opportunity and incentive to save so that they have retirement funds beyond that subsistence-level benefit. They should be auto-enrolled in retirement savings accounts that would include an option to invest in index funds, with the mix of investments shifting from stocks to bonds as workers approached retirement'.


Elizabeth Warren Is Wrong About Social Security


2336 Apr 8, 2015 1:29 PM EDT  Bloomberg Financial
By Ramesh Ponnuru



Social Security has a long-term funding gap that just keeps growing. Neither political party has a plan to pay for the promises we've already made to people contributing to the system. But Democrats are bringing a new idea to the table: make even more promises.
Almost all Senate Democrats have lined up behind a proposal by Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to expand benefits for current retirees. Liberals are exulting that Warren has shifted the politics of Social Security to the left: Where once we were debating cutbacks to the program, now we're debating benefit increases. Too bad that also means the debate is shifting further away from fiscal reality.
Social Security is becoming a worse deal for each generation. Those now joining the workforce are expected to pay more into the system than they get out of it. Warren's plan is to shower more money on the current generation of retirees, but without increasing the deficit over the next 10 years. That means, in all likelihood, raising taxes on current workers while also increasing the program's long-run fiscal deficit.
The strongest argument in favor of expanding benefits is that Social Security should keep all senior citizens out of poverty, and doesn't. That fact, though, is really a remarkable indictment of the way the program is currently structured. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Andrew Biggs has pointed out, the program substantially reduces work, saving and even birth rates without accomplishing this key social goal.
Social Security has always been a combination of forced savings and redistribution. The forced savings is overt, and helps cement political support for the program: It's the basis for the idea that retirees are "just getting back what they put in," which has been a fiction for most of the program's history. The redistribution is hidden, disguised in part by the program's universality: The formula for setting payments is progressive, but it is complicated, and even Warren Buffett can draw benefits.
Liberals seeking to expand Social Security want to keep this structure. They hope to make it better at alleviating poverty by raising benefit levels for everyone, even people who don't need it. The AFL-CIO's executive council put it this way in a 2012 statement: "Social Security retirement benefits must be increased across the board, which would be especially meaningful for low-income seniors." That's a good way to help the neediest at the largest possible cost.
It would be better, as Biggs proposes, to shift gradually to a new system that separates the two functions of Social Security. People joining the workforce now should be promised a flat universal retirement benefit set at a level that keeps all seniors out of poverty. At the same time, they should be given the opportunity and incentive to save so that they have retirement funds beyond that subsistence-level benefit. They should be auto-enrolled in retirement savings accounts that would include an option to invest in index funds, with the mix of investments shifting from stocks to bonds as workers approached retirement.
That would do better than the current program at preventing destitution because of the basic benefit. It would make for a more predictable stream of retirement income because it would dispense with complicated benefit formulas. And it would reduce Social Security's negative economic effects because it would no longer discourage work and saving.
It would also reduce Social Security's unfunded liability -- assuming, of course, that anyone still cares about that.

________________________________________

Bernie's plan for expanded Social Security leaves the SS Trust as it is----public-----and simply increases revenue by removing the payroll cap that stops at around $100,000 income----this will add lots of money to the SS Trust.  What Bernie does as well that is never mentioned ----is try to lift monthly SS payments for seniors that were hit hard by the FED manipulations of last decade-----seniors lost a few hundred dollars a month because of FED manipulations of inflation and interest rate.  Bernie wants to return those losses with a $65 a month boost.  Then, Bernie addresses the COLA debacle----the one that does not tie Cost of Living to things relative to a senior's life----all of this is GOOD SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY AND IT DOES MAKE SS TRUST STABLE AND ABLE TO LAST ALL CENTURY.


Warren's and Clinton neo-liberal Congress' plan is Obama's myRA privatization plan.


Please take time to see the difference----and then look at all the media outlets that tried to make the Warren and Congressional neo-liberal plan look progressive AND STOP FOLLOWING THOSE OUTLETS---THEY ARE PROGRESSIVE POSING NEO-LIBERAL MEDIA.



Sen. Sanders' Bold Plan to Expand Social Security


03/16/2015 01:47 pm ET | Updated May 16, 2015
  • Ben Veghte Vice President for Policy at the National Academy of Social Insurance




Last week U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) introduced the Social Security Expansion Act, a thoughtful plan to both ensure greater retirement security for today's workers and retirees and strengthen Social Security's finances over the long term. It achieves these goals in large part by reforming Social Security to better come to terms with the much higher levels of inequality in the 21st-century economy.
Social Security's Revenue Structure Is Being Undermined by Inequality
Since the 1970s mutually reinforcing economic and political forces have allowed a larger share of our national income to flow to the owners of capital and to high-level managerial employees, while the wages of average workers have stagnated. The labor share of national income has declined by about 10 percent since 1980, while the share going to the owners of capital has increased by over a third. And within the labor share, the distribution has become more skewed toward the top, with greater inequality than at any time since the 1920s.
Not only has wage growth slowed and become highly unequal, but wealth inequality has grown as well. Today the top 1 percent receive a majority of all investment income in the United States.
Social Security payroll taxes are not due on earnings above the Social Security tax cap. Only 6 percent earn above the cap, which is $118,500 in 2015. Hence only the bottom 94 percent of earners pay Social Security contributions on all of their earnings. Higher earners pay no Social Security contributions whatsoever on their earnings above the cap, or on any of their investment income. Given these structural constraints on Social Security's revenue stream, it is unsurprising that slow and extremely unequal wage growth is causing significant harm to Social Security's finances.
Retirement Income Crisis Calls for Expanded, Not Reduced, Benefits
Just as inequality is hurting Social Security's finances, it is also hurting average Americans' ability to save for retirement. After three decades with no growth in the aggregate income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans, a new report by the National Institute on Retirement Security finds that the typical working-age household has been able to accumulate only $2,500 -- and the typical household nearing retirement only $14,500 -- in retirement savings, and that more than half (62 percent) of households nearing retirement have retirement savings lower than their annual income. Moreover, today only 14 percent of workers participate in a defined benefit pension, with a downward trend.
As a result of these dynamics, a majority (52 percent) of today's working-age households are expected to suffer a decline in their living standards in retirement. In fact, the total gap between what households aged 30 to 60 have actually saved and what they should have saved by today to maintain their living standards in retirement is estimated to be $7.7 trillion. In short, we have an enormous retirement income crisis in this country. It is arguably our most significant public policy challenge. Yet most of the Social Security talk in Congress today is about cutting, not expanding, benefits.
Sen. Sanders' Plan Tackles Both Policy Challenges Head On
The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced last week by Sen. Sanders, would kill two birds with one stone.
To shore up Social Security's finances, Sen. Sanders' plan would eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions for earnings above $250,000 a year. It would also expand the system's revenue base to include high-income households' unearned income. Together, these measures would simply ensure that high-income households contribute to Social Security on all of their income at the same rate as the typical worker does.
To ease the retirement income crisis, it would expand benefits by:





  • Increasing Social Security benefits by about $65 a month for most recipients
  • Increasing cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients by basing them on an index that better reflects the living costs of seniors (the CPI-E)
  • Providing a minimum Social Security benefit to significantly reduce the senior poverty rate


Those Serious About Retirement Security Should Embrace This Plan Now
While Social Security benefits may have been adequate in the 1980s, slow and unequal wage growth, the failure of the private account system, and cuts to Social Security benefits make benefits inadequate today. This suggests a strong need to expand Social Security beyond the current average benefit of $15,970 a year, to provide for a minimum benefit, and to ensure that benefits are not eroded by inflation after retirement.
Social Security has been a rock-solid foundation of the middle class over the past 80 years -- always self-funded and never contributing to the debt. It has proven to be an effective, efficient means of providing economic security to the broad middle class. In order to pick up the slack in employer pension provision and individual savings, it should not only be restored to full solvency but expanded. Sen. Sanders' plan would expand benefits while also extending Social Security's solvency through 2060.
Many in Congress talk a great deal about retirement security and about the need to "strengthen Social Security," but few back up their words with thoughtful proposals. Sen. Sanders' Social Security Expansion Act offers a bold, comprehensive plan that would go far in addressing the nation's retirement security challenges by truly strengthening Social Security, the only leg of the retirement stool that has a proven track record of success.

_________________________________________________

It is important to note that never in the history of Social Security----from New Deal FDR days----has SS COLA's been manipulated to almost nothing as has happened under Bernanke's FED.  The FED was allowed to operate during Obama's terms as it never has ----all under the guise of 'saving the economy'.  Of course---saving the economy was breaking up the Wall Street banks and recovering trillions of dollars in fraud----but global pols both Clinton/Obama neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons have allowed the FED to operate against its mission and against public interest in the march to moving all wealth to the 1%.  Normally seniors have gotten the real inflation rate of 3-5%------AS INFLATION HAS BEEN THESE SEVERAL YEARS.  The FED manipulated inflation and interest rate figures to zero and 1% just so the rich could have soaring profits and free money lent for acquisitions and mergers overseas.  This is why the rich saw their wealth soar----as main street's wealth further declined----AND IT WAS DELIBERATE, WILLFUL, AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS BY THE FED.

This is what Bernie as a social Democrat is trying to address----first by setting a platform for the lowest SS monthly checks can go-----then by automatically boosting monthly payments by $65----it should be more-----and taking care of the COLA that has nothing to do with costs to seniors.



'Since 1975, annual Social Security raises have averaged 4.1 percent. Only six times have they been less than 2 percent, including this year, when the increase was 1.7 percent. There was no COLA in 2010 or 2011 because inflation was too low'.


Social Security COLA to again put squeeze on retirees; benefits increase is just 1.5 percent in 2014
In this Feb. 11, 2005 file photo, trays of printed social security checks wait to be mailed from the U.S. Treasury's Financial Management services facility in Philadelphia. For the second straight year, millions of Social Security recipients can expect an historically small increase in benefits come January 2014. (AP Photo/Bradley C. Bower, File)

By The Associated Press
on October 13, 2013 at 9:51 PM, updated October 13, 2013 at 10:01 PM
9 shares
WASHINGTON -- For the second straight year, millions of Social Security recipients, disabled veterans and federal retirees can expect historically small increases in their benefits come January.
Preliminary figures suggest a benefit increase of roughly 1.5 percent, which would be among the smallest since automatic increases were adopted in 1975, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
Next year's raise will be small because consumer prices, as measured by the government, haven't gone up much in the past year.
The exact size of the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, won't be known until the Labor Department releases the inflation report for September. That was supposed to happen Wednesday, but the report was delayed indefinitely because of the partial government shutdown.
The COLA is usually announced in October to give Social Security and other benefit programs time to adjust January payments. The Social Security Administration has given no indication that raises would be delayed because of the shutdown, but advocates for seniors said the uncertainty was unwelcome.
Social Security benefits have continued during the shutdown.
More than one-fifth of the country is waiting for the news.
Nearly 58 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children get Social Security benefits. The average monthly payment is $1,162. A 1.5 percent raise would increase the typical monthly payment by about $17.
The COLA also affects benefits for more than 3 million disabled veterans, about 2.5 million federal retirees and their survivors, and more than 8 million people who get Supplemental Security Income, the disability program for the poor.
Automatic COLAs were adopted so that benefits for people on fixed incomes would keep up with rising prices. Many seniors, however, complain that the COLA sometimes falls short, leaving them little wiggle room.
David Waugh of Bethesda, Md., said he can handle one small COLA but several in a row make it hard to plan for unexpected expenses.
"I'm not one of those folks that's going to fall into poverty, but it is going to make a difference in my standard of living as time goes by," said Waugh, 83, who retired from the United Nations. "I live in a small apartment and I have an old car, and it's going to break down. And no doubt when it does, I'll have to fix it or get a new one."
Since 1975, annual Social Security raises have averaged 4.1 percent. Only six times have they been less than 2 percent, including this year, when the increase was 1.7 percent. There was no COLA in 2010 or 2011 because inflation was too low.
By law, the cost-of-living adjustment is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W, a broad measure of consumer prices generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It measures price changes for food, housing, clothing, transportation, energy, medical care, recreation and education.
The COLA is calculated by comparing consumer prices in July, August and September each year to prices in the same three months from the previous year. If prices go up over the course of the year, benefits go up, starting with payments delivered in January.
This year, average prices for July and August were 1.4 percent higher than they were a year ago, according to the CPI-W.
Once the September report, the final piece of the puzzle, is released, the COLA can be announced officially. If prices continued to slowly inch up in September, that would put the COLA at roughly 1.5 percent.
Several economists said there were no dramatic price swings in September to significantly increase or decrease the projected COLA. That means the projection shouldn't change by more than a few tenths of a percentage point, if at all.
Polina Vlasenko, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, projects the COLA will be between 1.4 percent and 1.6 percent.
Her projection is similar to those done by others, including AARP, which estimates the COLA will be between 1.5 percent and 1.7 percent. The Senior Citizens League estimates it will be about 1.5 percent.
Lower prices for gasoline are helping to fuel low inflation, Vlasenko said.
"In years with high COLA's, a lot of that had to do with fuel prices and in some cases food prices. Neither of those increased much this year," Vlasenko said. "So that kept the lid on the overall increase in prices."
Gasoline prices are down 2.4 percent from a year ago while food prices are up slightly, according to the August inflation report. Housing costs went up 2.3 percent and utilities increased by 3.2 percent.
Advocates for seniors say the government's measure of inflation doesn't accurately reflect price increases older Americans face because they tend to spend more of their income on health care. Medical costs went up less than in previous years but still outpaced other consumer prices, rising 2.5 percent.
"This (COLA) is not enough to keep up with inflation, as it affects seniors," said Max Richtman, who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "There are some things that become cheaper but they are not things that seniors buy. Laptop computers have gone down dramatically but how many people at 70 are buying laptop computers?"

The cost of personal computers dropped by 10.6 percent over the past year, according the CPI-W.
That's a small consolation to Alberta Gaskins of the District of Columbia, who said she is concerned about keeping up with her household bills.
"It is very important to get the COLA because everything else you have in your life is on an upward swing, and if you're on a downward swing, that means your quality of life is going down," said Gaskins, who retired from the Postal Service in 1989.

____________________________________________

As we look at Social Security policy-----know the history because that allows voters to understand current policies.  Here you see the Reagan Republican neo-liberal with his Ayn Rand Libertarian Greenspan talking about Social Security policy.  Since neo-liberalism is far-right-----and Libertarianism is far-right------we know this policy discussion will not end well for the American people----and look at today where Social Security Trust lies-----with the same groups of people saying SS Trust is almost depleted.

Reagan did many things to kill Social Security ----but the two things that Republicans love to do-----soak citizens with taxation all of which is then handed to corporations and the rich----YES, TAXING MAIN STREET HEAVILY WHILE NOT TAXING THE RICH AT ALL IS REPUBLICAN.  Reagan and Greenspan came up with these policies in the 1980s----saying that in order to have enough SS for baby boomers they needed to triple  the payroll tax rate ----but having the cap on income over $100,000.  This was a huge chunk out of worker's checks and it was sold as having plenty of revenue for baby boomers ----that's today.

Needless to say, neither Reagan nor Greenspan was interested in saving SS for baby boomers---they wanted the US Treasury to have more revenue to loot----and Reagan funded his nuclear arms race with that tripled payroll tax.  It was at the same time of raising the payroll tax rate that Reagan decided all Social Security Trust payroll tax revenue should go to the US Treasury and not the Trust----and VOILA----all of what should have been protected SS Trust is now in the US Treasury building overseas military and open for Wall Street and corporate looting of tens of trillions of dollars in fraud.


SO, THIS POLICY WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS PLENTY IN SS FOR THE BABY BOOMER EXODUS INTO RETIREMENT----AND NOW SS TRUST IS ALMOST BUST THEY SAY.


1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform
This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures.


Appendix C of the 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform


Chapter 4

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS


This chapter consists of additional statements of individual members of the National Commission. These statements are presented alphabetically by name of member; those which are signed onto by several members appear first.

The statements appear in the following order:

(1) Commissioners Archer, Beck, Conable, Dole, Fuller, Greenspan, Heinz, and Trowbridge
(2) Commissioners Ball, Keys, Kirkland, Moynihan, and Pepper (long-range financing and issues of special concern to women)
(3) Commissioners Ball, Keys, Kirkland, Moynihan, and Pepper (independent agency)
(4) Commissioners Ball, Keys, Kirkland, Moynihan, and Pepper (HI cost estimates)
(5) Commissioners Dole and Conable
(6) Commissioner Archer
(7) Commissioner Armstrong
(8) Commissioner Fuller (long-range financing)
(9) Commissioner Fuller (issues of special concern to women)
(10) Commissioner Kirkland
(11) Commissioner Waggonner






SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT ON MEETING THE LONG-RANGE FINANCING REQUIREMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS ARCHER, BECK, CONABLE, DOLE, FULLER, GREENSPAN, HEINZ, AND TROWBRIDGE

The recommendations made in the "consensus" package fail to meet the long-range goal of providing additional financing equivalent to 1.8% of taxable payroll. The shortfall is an estimated .58% of taxable payroll. We believe that this should be derived by a delayed, slowly phased-in increase in the "normal" retirement age (the age at which unreduced retirement benefits are available to insured workers, spouses, and widow(er)s -- which is age 65 under present law).

The major reasons for this proposal are:

(1) Americans are living longer.

(2) Older workers will be in a greater demand in future years.
(3) The disability benefits program can be improved to provide cash benefits and Medicare to those between age 62 and the higher normal retirement age who, for reasons of health, are unable to continue working.
(4) Because the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is projected to decline after the turn of the century, younger generations are expected to pay significantly increased taxes to support the system in the 21st century. An increase in the normal retirement age will lessen the increase.
(5) Given sufficient notice, coming generations of beneficiaries can adjust to a later retirement age just as earlier generations adjusted to age 65.
Although we believe that greater action in this direction may be desirable, we are suggesting only enough change to produce approximately the needed .58% of taxable payroll. The recommended change would apply only to the normal retirement age. Early-retirement benefits would continue to be available beginning at age 62 for insured workers and spouses and at age 60 for widows and widowers, but the actuarial reduction factors would be larger. The minimum age for eligibility for Medicare benefits would continue to be the "normal" retirement age for OASDI benefits. Disability benefits are now available under somewhat less stringent definitions for those aged 60-64. However, because some workers, particularly those in physically demanding employment, may not benefit from improvements in mortality and be able to work longer, we assume that the disability benefits program will be improved prior to the implementation of this recommendation to take into account the special problems of those between age 62 and the normal retirement age who are unable to extend their working careers for health reasons.

Under our proposal, the normal retirement age would be gradually increased -- one month each year -- to age 66 in 2015, beginning the phase-in with those who attain age 62 in 2000. Beginning with those who attain age 62 in 2012, the normal retirement age would be automatically adjusted (on a phased-in basis) so that the ratio of the retirement-life expectancy to the potential working-lifetime (from age 20 to the "normal" retirement age) remains the same over the years as it was in 1990. The estimated long-range savings of this proposal is 0.65% of taxable payroll.

0 Comments

January 26th, 2016

1/26/2016

0 Comments

 
We want to end for now this talk on US media by looking at how badly journalism and the American expectation that what we see on TV and our news journalism is true.  I watched weekday morning mainstream news this morning for the first time in decades-----because of the blizzard keeping people home.  CBS national news had people working as journalists showing a clip of the Iowa Democratic debates.  I don't know if the clip I saw on my local CBS WJZ morning news was edited by CBS national or WJZ local but it was truly disturbing.  I attach this post with another CBS news clip that probably aired prime time yesterday-----very professional compared to the weekday morning news coverage.  The morning news showed images of Bernie and Hillary as the Democratic primary candidates------the image of Hillary was air-brushed and had her looking in her 40s------the image of Bernie was the worst I have seen making him look far older-----

HILLARY AND BERNIE ARE THE SAME AGE.

The prime time CBS showed Bernie and Hillary polling closely in IOWA---which means that Bernie is polling quite higher as 'likely voters' skew these polls----and it shows him ahead.  The prime time news report also shows Bernie's polls soaring in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.

This CBS morning news on WJZ showed those biased images of the candidates-----showed the polling to have Hillary ahead of Bernie in the IOWA polls-----and the people on the morning show actually made fun of  Bernie-----saying that Bernie had left Iowa and his campaign staff of Ben and Jerry's from Vermont were in charge-----making a comment about Bernie and CHUNKY MONKEY----then all laughing. 

THIS KIND OF JOURNALISM WAS NEVER SEEN ESPECIALLY DURING ELECTIONS ON A NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA---THIS IS TALK SHOW HUMOR.

It makes sense that it was shown in Baltimore where citizens have absolutely no education on candidates, policies, and are exposed to this kind of media all the time.



Dickerson and Cordes on tightening Democratic race

CBS This Morning

Published on Jan 25, 2016The CBS News Battleground Tracker in Iowa finds the Democrats are in a much tighter race than the Republicans. Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by just one point, 47 to 46 percent. But in New Hampshire, the senator from neighboring Vermont holds a 19-point lead. Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes and CBS News political director John Dickerson joins “CBS This Morning” to discuss the state of the Democratic race.


_____________________________________________
Because Maryland and especially Baltimore fails to enforce any Federal laws and has no oversight and accountability of corporate operations at all-----media is filled with people and businesses that want to defraud ------the FCC and US Attorney's Office would throw a media outlet like that off the air------when Federal laws were enforced.


IF BALTIMORE HAD A FUNCTIONING BALTIMORE STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE----A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRATIC PARTY-----A FUNCTIONING JUSTICE ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS TO PROTECT SENIORS-----THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOUTING TO PROTECT SENIORS FROM INVESTING IN THESE LIFE INSURANCE SCAMS.
I have shouted before and I want to shout again------Baltimore's local media sells Wall Street and corporate fraud like no other. I have not seen the number of what I know are fraudulent fly-by-night corporate ads played over and over and over on Baltimore's free TV stations tied to WJZ----WBAL---FOX. Anything having to do with Wall Street and their complex financial instruments is confusing but this is what everyone with LIFE INSURANCE needs to beware------remember when Moody's gave AAA ratings to all the subprime mortgage fraud-----being the major corporation in aiding and abetting these crimes. Nothing happened to these rating corporations and they are still rating investments higher than they actually are. The word to know is tranches. The bond market is now the subprime mortgage market of last decade with trillions of dollars in US Treasury and municipal bonds in tranches -----the rich are sold tranches with insurance that will protect all the value of the bonds-----while main street investments will be in lower tranches having no insurance protection and will be lost in this coming crash. Life Insurance corporations are overwhelmingly invested in this coming bond market collapse and main street will lose all money put into these policies. YOU WILL NOT GET BACK THAT MONEY----IT WILL GO TO SUPPORT THE RICH TRANCHES. Please know that if a corporation is advertising on free TV as is done in Baltimore-----these corporations are probably positioned to go bankrupt in the coming bond market crash.
'The company's risky asset to total adjusted capital ratio of 93% was modestly above the life industry average of 87% at yearend 2014 due its exposure to below investment grade bonds'.

Seniors were one of the largest target group for the subprime mortgage fraud-----this is what allowing media to operate without any FCC regulations and protections leads to. 

The insurance corporation handling Colonial Penn has been in or close to bankruptcy for decades------it is known to be irresponsi ble and you can bet-----IT WILL BE BANKRUPT IN THIS COMING ECONOMIC CRASH----------COLONIAL PENN IS THE TOP ADVERTISER ON BALTIMORE LOCAL MEDIA -----------------------------------------------------------Forget Conseco – now it's CNO Financial
Financial services company with troubled past changes corporate name; ‘new beginning'

May 12, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

By Darla Mercado

In an apparent bid to distance itself from past troubles, Conseco Inc. yesterday changed its name to CNO Financial Group Inc.

------------------------------------------------Beleaguered Conseco may face bankruptcy - again

Much hinges on report from its auditors, according to analysts

Mar 8, 2009 @ 12:01 am-------------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco is Bankrupt—Finally! - Schiff's Insurance...
http://www.insuranceobserver.com/PDF/2002/121902.pdf
File format:Adobe PDF

Dec 19, 2002 ... The world's most dangerous insurance publicationSM. Conseco is Bankrupt— Finally! Long Time Coming. Conseco's former C.E.O., Stephen ...




The article below is long and boring----but please glance through----it shows how they give a positive outlook to what will become toxic investments for everyone but the rich----only AAA tranches are insured-------


Markets | Mon May 11, 2015 2:24pm EDT
Related:
Financials
Fitch Expects to Rate CNO Financial's Sr Debt 'BB+'; Upgrades IFS Rtgs to BBB+; Outlook Positive


(The following statement was released by the rating agency) CHICAGO, May 11


(Fitch) Fitch Ratings has assigned a 'BB+(EXP)' rating to CNO Financial Group Inc.'s (CNO) planned issuance of new senior unsecured notes. At the same time, Fitch has upgraded the Insurer Financial Strength (IFS) ratings for CNO's core insurance subsidiaries to 'BBB+' from 'BBB'. The Rating Outlook is Positive for all ratings. A full list of rating actions follows at the end of this release.

KEY RATING DRIVERS


The upgrade of CNO's ratings reflect the company's improved financial flexibility related to the announced recapitalization of its outstanding debt and more consistent financial results and interest coverage metrics. The ratings continue to reflect the company's strong statutory capitalization and moderate financial leverage that are favorable for the rating level and remain in line with expectations. Furthermore, CNO has made good progress in recent years divesting underperforming, capital-intensive businesses. The Positive Outlook reflects Fitch's expectations that the company will sustain recent improvements in its earnings profile and balance sheet fundamentals at favorable levels with respect to current ratings. Primary rating concerns include the company's still large exposure to the long-term care (LTC) market and challenges associated with the ongoing low interest rate environment. Fitch views the recapitalization to an unsecured senior debt structure as the key driver for the standard notching of CNO's unsecured debt relative to the IDR. CNO will issue $800 million in new debt and an additional $100 million will be drawn on its new four-year revolver. Additional benefits with the new capital structure include the extension of its maturity schedule and less restrictive covenants. The company's financial leverage remains moderate although it increases to at 19.2% on a pro forma basis from 17.2% at March 31, 2015 with additional long-term debt of approximately $125 million after the retirement of current outstanding senior secured notes. Proceeds from the new issuance will be used to retire approximately $775 million of current outstanding debt and for general corporate purposes. Fitch views CNO's statutory capitalization as strong for the rating. The consolidated RBC ratio remained steady at 428% as of March 31, 2015, from 431% at year-end 2014. Total adjusted capital growth has been consistent, increasing 4.2% in 2014 and at a 5.9% annual growth rate since 2010. Fitch expects CNO's capital to remain in the 400% to 425% range for 2015. CNO has reported stable operating earnings over the last 12 months despite pressure from low interest rates, and moderately increasing LTC benefit and supplemental health loss ratios in the first quarter of 2015. Profitability as measured by return on equity (ROE) is seen as solid for the rating as reflected by the company's operating ROE of 6.4% for 2014 following 6.7% the prior year. CNO's business segments reported a 4.5% increase in after-tax, operating earnings in 2014 versus the prior year driven by favorable fixed annuity, Medicare supplement and LTC margins at Bankers Life & Casualty Insurance Company. CNO has not reported significant special charges following the $278 million loss on the sale of Conseco Life Insurance Company reported in the first quarter of 2014. While the low interest rate environment has pressured earnings at CNO, management has taken actions by lowering crediting rates on interest-sensitive products, repricing products and building LTC reserves to maintain product margins. CNO's operating interest coverage is viewed as strong at 10.1x for 2014 and 9.0X for 2013. Fitch expects fixed charge coverage to range from 8-10x excluding unusual items for 2015. CNO maintains approximately $300 million in cash at the holding company level providing support and flexibility for interest expense coverage. CNO's overall investment credit quality is good and investment performance is expected to remain so in 2015. The company's risky asset to total adjusted capital ratio of 93% was modestly above the life industry average of 87% at yearend 2014 due its exposure to below investment grade bonds. However, CNO has low exposure to directly placed commercial mortgages and alternative assets. The investment-grade bond portfolio has above-average investment in 'BBB' level rated securities at approximately 45% of the portfolio, making it potentially more vulnerable to downgrade risk in a declining economic environment. Credit related impairments continued to be minimal in 2014 and the first three months of 2015. RATING SENSITIVITIES Key rating triggers that could lead to an upgrade for all ratings include: --Consistent earnings without significant special charges and with operating return on equity above 8%. --GAAP operating interest coverage ratio above 8x; --NAIC RBC ratio above 350%. Key rating triggers that could lead to a downgrade include: --Combined NAIC RBC ratio less than 325% and operating leverage above 20x; --Deterioration in operating results; --Decline in fixed charge coverage to below 5x; --Significant increase in credit-related impairments; --Financial leverage above 30% Fitch expects to assign the following ratings: --$800 million senior unsecured note due 2020 and 2025 'BB+'. Fitch has upgraded the following ratings: CNO Financial Group, Inc. --IDR to 'BBB-' from 'BB+'; --Senior secured bank credit facility (tranches of $250 million and $425 million due Sept. 30, 2016 and 2018, respectively) to 'BBB-' from 'BB+'; --$275 million senior secured note 6.375% due Oct. 1, 2020 to 'BBB-' from 'BB+'. Bankers Life and Casualty Company Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company Washington National Insurance Company --IFS upgraded to 'BBB+' from 'BBB'.


________________________________________________
Another staple on the Baltimore local media over and over and over and over is the Reverse Mortgage program.  This policy worked for a few decades just fine for seniors and their families----but as with all that is Wall Street------these reverse mortgage loans are now tied to fraud------and these loans have been bundled and placed into tranches like subprime mortgage loans and hedge funds and Wall Street investment firms own most of these loans-----and with this coming crash---we will be told that people with these reverse mortgage loans must pay up or move out----and these hedge funds will get these real estate properties----just as with the subprime mortgage frauds.  Just another way that the American dream of homeownership ends----with families unable to inherit or assume control of their family homes....the same few hedge funds are gathering all the US real estate.

'The industry has historically drawn its fair share of scorn for using older Hollywood actors to hawk their product on late-night television advertisements. Some consumer advocates have complained that the reverse mortgage business preys on the financially ill-informed, who might be better off simply selling their homes and banking the cash than entering into a transaction that pays a premium to a lender'.


Below you see the reverse-mortgage industry is now as subprimed as the subprime mortgage loan fraud from last decade----they are doing the same thing-----So, we all know that much of the ads on TV regarding reverse mortgage corporations are those deceptive ads----and it targets the same group of people------those struggling to stay in their homes-----families out of work and needing cash------and it is hedge funds being allowed to tie themselves yet again to American homes.  Watch as we hear that these hedge fund owners consolidating this reverse mortgage loan industry just happens to be heavily invested in the US Treasury and municipal bond market getting ready to collapse----they will have insurance to protect them from losses-----but the banks will come for these houses and families will be tied to debt.


Rating Action:
Moody's downgrades $5 billion of HECM reverse mortgage bonds
Global Credit Research - 07 Mar 2012
New York, March 07, 2012 -- Moody's Investors Service has downgraded 13 securities from 10 deals backed by Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM). Moody's also downgraded six reverse mortgage backed resecuritization bonds from two deals.


The collateral backing these transactions consists primarily of HECM reverse mortgages that benefit from mortgage insurance protection from the Federal Housing Administration, a federal agency in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

******************************************************************

How to Avoid a Reverse-Mortgage ScamDeceptive ads and out-and-out fraud often lead to financial trouble

Greg Daugherty Money June 18, 2015

Reverse mortgages have become as much a staple of late-night TV advertising as amazing kitchen gizmos and miracle wrinkle creams. But while a kitchen gizmo or wrinkle cream that doesn’t perform as advertised might set you back $19.95* (*plus shipping and handling), a reverse mortgage could cost you  your home.High costs, real risksReverse mortgages allow homeowners over age 62 to borrow against the equity in their homes in return for monthly income, a line of credit or a lump-sum payment. They aren’t always a terrible deal. But even the best of them have some serious drawbacks that are worth weighing before considering one. Those include high  interest rates, numerous fees and the possibility of losing your home if you’re unable to keep up with the insurance and taxes on it.
Related: Home Buyers: Save Money By Negotiating These Closing Costs
Sneaky TV adsWhat’s more, the advertising for reverse mortgages is often confusing, incomplete or inaccurate, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFBB) recently charged. In a report taking the industry to task, the CFPB complained that the lenders’ ads frequently:
  • Give homeowners the false impression that reverse mortgages are a free government benefit.
  • Don’t make it clear that reverse mortgages are actually loans that will have to be paid back eventually. (Typically that’s when the homeowner dies, sells the home or leaves it permanently.)
  • Bury the loans’ interest rates and fees in the fine print, if they mention them at all.
  • Imply that a reverse mortgage will provide lifelong financial security, without mentioning that borrowers can exhaust their home equity or lose their homes to foreclosure.
At a news conference announcing the report, CFPB director Richard Cordray said the ads were of particular concern to his agency “because reverse mortgages are inherently complicated and because they are marketed to older homeowners who are known to be more vulnerable in many instances.”
Total scamsDeceptive or borderline-deceptive TV commercials may not be the worst problem associated with reverse mortgages. Some of the sneaky sales practices used to market them are out-and-out  scams, designed to defraud homeowners and steal any home equity they may have built up over the years.
According to the CFPB, the FBI and other sources, these are a few of the more common ones:
  • Investment scams. The homeowner is persuaded to take out a reverse mortgage and put the proceeds into an annuity or other investment product. The investment may be inappropriate for the homeowner’s age, overpriced or simply bogus. Another twist: the homeowner may be told that he or she has to buy a particular investment product in order to qualify for a reverse mortgage.
  • Home contractor frauds. Crooked contractors trick homeowners into signing up for reverse mortgages in order to finance home repairs, or homeowners are told they need to make expensive repairs in order to qualify for a reverse mortgage. The loans are sometimes represented as a no-cost government program to help people fix up their homes. The repairs may or may not ever happen.
  • Identity (and equity) theft. In this scam, someone impersonates the homeowner, signs up for a home equity loan and pockets the proceeds. These thefts can be inside jobs perpetrated by unscrupulous relatives or caregivers, or they can be the work of total strangers. In some cases, the homeowner may have been tricked into signing a power of attorney, a legal document that gives someone the power to act on his or her behalf.
  • Foreclosure rescue scams. People whose homes are in danger of foreclosure are told that a reverse mortgage can prevent that from happening. Through a convoluted series of transactions, they may instead end up signing away the home and losing all of their equity in it.

Other danger signsThe Federal National Mortgage Corporation, or Fannie Mae, says these are also signs of a possible scam:
  • Reverse-mortgage offers that come unsolicited.
  • Pressure to use a particular real-estate appraiser or home-renovation contractor.
  • Efforts to isolate the homeowner and keep other family members from knowing what’s going on.
  • Lenders that aren’t on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s list of approved reverse-mortgage lenders.
To learn more about legitimate reverse mortgages, visit the Federal Housing Administration’s website for the details on its Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. The CFPB also has useful tips on reverse mortgages. 

__________________________________________________
If you are not aware-------Obama has subprimed HARP----just as Bush did with Federal mortgage loans-----just before a coming economic crash------just as Bush did------and I am hearing they are even back to using the ARM------adjustable Rate Mortgage that ballooned on people during the 2008 crash causing millions of people to lose their homes.

Why are they doing this?  First, global pols are trying hard to move all real estate in the US into the hands of the 1%------this is why they are building all this fraud into the real estate system-----and why national media keeps running the advertisements no matter how loudly EVERYONE IS SHOUTING ------THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY IS SYSTEMICALLY CRIMINAL.

This time they will capture yet more long-term unemployed-------young adults buying their first homes----and not keeping a job in this coming economic crash-----or the ARM will have soaring interest rates as the FED rate climbs and the crash creates inflation and higher interest rates.

GLOBAL POLS DO NOT CARE----THEY ARE JUST SENDING OUT ANYTHING FULL OF FRAUD------JUST TO MOVE WEALTH TO THE RICHEST.




How to Refinance Your Home Loan With Bad Credit 

October 17, 2013 by Lucy Lazarony

Looking for a way to refinance your home when you have bad or blemished credit?
You do have refinancing options and you don’t need perfect credit to qualify.
Check Out HARP 2One option to consider is HARP 2, the revamped federal Home Affordable Refinance Program.
There are no loan-to-value restrictions in this refinancing program. But there are a few requirements:
  • Your mortgage is owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
  • Your mortgage was delivered to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac by June 1, 2009.
  • You haven’t previously used the Making Home Affordable Refinance Program.
  • Your loan is not an FHA loan.
The aim of HARP 2 is to make it easier for homeowners who owe much more on their homes than the homes are worth to refinance into lower-rate loans.
Not sure if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac owns your mortgage? Look-up tools from Fannie and Freddie make it easy to find out.

Refinance an FHA LoanIf your home loan is insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), be sure to check out your refinancing options as well.
FHA mortgage programs have more lenient qualifying guidelines than other mortgage programs and are easier to refinance.
A downside to financing a home with an FHA loan is the increasing costs of
mortgage insurance premium (MIP) associated with this type of loan.
According to the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development to “streamline refinance” an FHA loan, the mortgage you would like to refinance must already be FHA-insured and the mortgage must be current and not delinquent. So folks who fell behind on an FHA-insured mortgage are out of luck.
In addition, no cash may be taken out on FHA mortgages refinanced using the streamlined refinanced process and the refinance results must result in lowering a borrower’s monthly principal and interest.
To learn more about refinancing an FHA loan, contact any mortgage professional that offers these kinds of loans.
Check Your CreditHomeowners with less-than-stellar credit who would like to refinance can use the free Credit Report Card to gauge how their credit is recovering and make plans to improve their credit.
It also is a good idea to pull your credit report once a year for free from each of the major credit reporting bureaus.


_____________________________________________The reason I place these posts with my talk on media------Baltimore local media advertises myRA-------markets it to viewers. Because FCC and Fairness Doctrine has been dismantled-----no opposing view is being aired-----no one is saying----
WAIT----YOU ARE PRIVATIZING OUR SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST AND NO ONE WANTS THAT!
As everyone watches their 401Ks tank yet again with this coming economic crash----think twice about tying yourself to what is a just a scheme to send Wall Street more revenue to leverage.
New Rules for Retirement
You can now sign up for Obama's myRA retirement account
by Katie Lobosco   @KatieLobosco November 4, 2015: 3:59 PM ET



There's a new way to save for retirement, and it's specifically for Americans who don't get a 401(k) or pension at work.


The Obama administration launched its "myRA" retirement account program nationwide Wednesday, after nearly a year-long pilot program.
It targets low- and middle-income Americans who haven't yet started saving for retirement.
Saving is hard to do without help from your employer.
And about half of all workers don't get a 401(k) or pension at work. Many part-time workers and those at small businesses are on their own.
While people without a workplace plan can also open an account like an IRA, the federally-backed myRA is less risky.


How will the myRA account work?


There are three ways you can put money into your account.



You can transfer after-tax dollars from your paycheck directly into your myRA if your employer offers direct deposit. You can link it up with your checking or savings account and schedule one-time or regular contributions. Or, you can direct some of your federal tax refund to the account.


Why open a myRA account?

You won't incur any fees, there's no minimum balance required, and the principal amount is guaranteed by the government. So you'll never lose any of the money you put into it.



What's the catch?


The money is invested in a super-safe Treasury Securities Fund. It offered a return of 2.3% last year, and 3.2% over the last decade. That's better than a typical savings account, but less than what a riskier investment might make.

While you can withdraw the money you put in, you will be penalized if you take out any of the earnings from interest before turning 59½, just like a regular Roth IRA. There are some exceptions, such as using the money to buy a home or to pay for some higher education expenses.


What are the limitations?

You can only open a myRA if you earn less than $131,000 if single, or $193,000 if married. And you can only contribute up to $5,500 per year, or $6,500 a year if you're age 50 and older. You can also have an IRA or Roth IRA account, but your total contributions to all of your IRA accounts cannot exceed those limits.

The amount you can save in your myRA is capped at $15,000, and you can not have it open for longer than 30 years. At that point -- whichever comes first -- you must transfer your money to a private-sector Roth IRA.

_________________________________________________

This is from where Obama draws his myRA-------it is Bush's plan to privatize Social Security----but no one knows this connection because no media outlet allows a social Democrat air time to give opposing views.  What we see over and over and over again, is Elizabeth Warren stating she supports Expanded Social Security----but it is an extension of this Obama myRA privatized plan.
Primer on President Bush’s “Plan” for Social Security Privatization

By Christian E. Weller | Thursday, May 5, 2005


President Bush has never spelled out a detailed plan on how he would like to reform Social Security; in fact, his "plan" seems to shift every couple of weeks. However, his advisors have released several details and general ideas that may ultimately form the basis for his final plan to privatize Social Security, although the final proposal remains unknown.
What President Bush has proposed so far would mean massive benefit cuts for America’s middle class – possibly with more to come – and huge new government deficits to finance the carving up of Social Security to create privatization accounts.
There are two separate issues at stake here: Social Security solvency (bringing into balance Social Security revenue and payments) and the creation of privatization accounts, which would divert a substantial share of payroll taxes away from Social Security.
In connection with the President’s State of the Union address on February 2, 2005, the White House released some specifics of the president’s plan for privatization accounts:
On April 28, the White House provided some details on how President Bush plans to address Social Security’s solvency:
    • Bush Would Address Solvency Solely by Cutting Benefits. President Bush has ruled out the possibility of payroll tax increases, and has suggested no other increases in funding. The White House has also apparently retracted its support for raising the cap – currently set at $90,000 – above which earnings are no longer subject to Social Security taxation.
    • Benefit Cuts Would Come Through a Change in the Benefit Formula. Currently, benefits and tax contributions grow at the rate of wage growth. For new beneficiaries earning $90,000 in 2005, initial benefits under the president’s outline would rise slower than the amount of taxes contributed, and only at the inflation rate. For people earning between $20,000 and $90,000 in 2005, initial benefits would grow above the rate of inflation, but below the rate of wage growth and tax contributions.
    • Bush’s Benefit Cuts Would Affect 70 Percent of All Taxpayers. Benefits would be cut for everybody making more than $20,000 in 2005. For an average wage earner retiring in 2075, the cuts would equal 28 percent. For workers whose wages are 60 percent above the average – currently $59,000 – the cut would be 25 percent if they retired in 2045 and 42 percent if they retired in 2075.
    • More Benefit Cuts Down the Road under Bush’s Plan. The president’s proposal still requires further massive benefit cuts, since the change in benefits does not cover the full imbalance in Social Security. President Bush’s proposal to massively cut middle-class benefits will cover only 57 percent of the projected shortfall. To address the full shortfall, he would have to further cut retirement benefits or cut disability benefits as well.
  • Bush Would Create Private Accounts. Starting in 2011, all workers could divert a third of their payroll tax, or 4 percent of their earnings, up to $1,000 per year, into a privatization account.
  • "Clawback" Would Eat Into Any Gains In Accounts. Upon retirement, workers would be subject to a "clawback" and would have to repay the money diverted into private accounts, plus interest, plus inflation, through automatic reductions of their guaranteed benefits. The total interest rate would be 3 percent above inflation annually. Unless the amount in their accounts grew by more than 3 percent plus inflation, the "clawback" would take away all (or more than all) of the value of the account.
  • Private Accounts Would Force Trillions in New Borrowing. Under Bush’s plan, money that was earmarked to pay current beneficiaries would no longer be available, requiring the government to borrow trillions of dollars to allow Social Security to pay for promised benefits. Without this borrowing, benefit cuts to current retirees would have to be made.
  • Bush’s Plan Would Worsen Social Security’s Financial Outlook. Accounts could be passed on in the event of a worker’s death or split in the case of divorce. In those cases, Social Security benefits would not be automatically reduced to recoup the money diverted away from Social Security, presenting a net loss.
  • Investment Choices Would Be Limited. Workers could invest in five index funds, but it is unclear who would decide upon these choices or how the options would be determined. At higher ages, investments would be allocated to lifecycle funds that reduce the share of stocks with age, unless workers opt out of those funds. Upon retirement, workers would be forced to convert enough of their accounts into lifetime annuities to have a benefit equal to at least the poverty line.
__________________________________________________


As we see here------an FCC under Obama as a Democrat would have been expected to protect the Fairness Doctrine-----all that had to be done is for the FCC to vote to reverse the Reagan era attack on this democratizing policy on media-------this is why media today is allowed to present only global Clinton neo-liberal/Bush neo-con voice----why all this progressive posing and outright lying about public policy fills the airwaves with no way to present opposing views that would educate as to why voters should not support a policy issue.  Baltimore is the worst----it is far-right Republican all the time----International Economic Zone and Wall Street Baltimore Development all the time-----

AND EVEN CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS ARE ANGRY OVER THEIR LOSS OF VOICE TO BUSH/HOPKINS NEO-CONSERVATIVES.


'Earlier this summer FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski agreed to erase the post WWII-era rule, but the action Monday puts the last nail into the coffin for the regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view. A broadcaster that violated the rule risked losing its license'.

FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine

By Brooks Boliek
08/22/11 03:22 PM EDT

The FCC gave the coup de grace to the fairness doctrine Monday as the commission axed more than 80 media industry rules.
Earlier this summer FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski agreed to erase the post WWII-era rule, but the action Monday puts the last nail into the coffin for the regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view. A broadcaster that violated the rule risked losing its license.
While the commission voted in 1987 to do away with the rule — a legacy to a time when broadcasting was a much more dominant voice than it is today — the language implementing it was never removed. The move Monday, once published in the federal register, effectively erases the rule.
Monday’s move is part of the commission’s response to a White House executive order directing a “government-wide review of regulations already on the books” designed to eliminate unnecessary regulations.
Also consigned to the regulatory dustbin are the “broadcast flag” digital copy protection rule that was struck down by the courts and the cable programming service tier rate. Altogether, the agency tossed 83 rules and regs.
Genachowski said in a statement that the move was aimed at promoting “a healthy climate for private investment and job creation.” Both the Obama administration and the FCC have come under criticism by business groups over laws and regulations such as health care reform and net neutrality rules.



0 Comments

January 25th, 2016

1/25/2016

0 Comments

 
Every excuse for selling public airwaves is posing progressive------to raise revenue for the US Treasury still reeling from the tens of trillions of dollars in corporate fraud from last decade-------to use our low-frequency airwaves more effectively-----jobs jobs jobs as WiFi creates small business boom----NONE OF WHICH IS TRUE. The Affordable Care Act was about ending public health and moving US citizens to a cheapened telemedicine and to expand this globally-----taking much of internet space. This was about what the hundreds of billions being spent on placing medical record technology in place......then Race to the Top pushed online lessons and public schools and universities and now grow them globally-----THIS IS ABOUT WHAT THE AUCTIONING OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES HAS A A GOAL. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT NEED OR WANT ANY OF THIS----BUT YOUR CLINTON/OBAMA WALL STREET NEO-LIBERAL PUSHED ALL THIS AND POSED PROGRESSIVE IN MAKING IT SOUND GOOD FOR AMERICA.
It is the Ivy League universities all funded hundreds of billions of dollars in Obama's 2010 stimulus with Congressional neo-liberals on board that are the only ones benefiting from all this global market expansion and it is the Ivy League university endowments tied to buying all the public infrastructure in all US cities deemed International Economic Zones......like Johns Hopkins. Ivy League as in Wall Street universities----not Sports league.
*****************************************************************
Telemedicine will Drive Broadband Utilization in 2015: Congressional action includes 21st Century Cures Initiative
Telemedicine applications are one the most voracious consumers of bandwidth because of how much is required to support the transmission of streaming video and high resolution diagnostic imaging.

Wall Street is shameless as posing progressive now comes with helping veterans who are killed from the dismantling of Federal Veteran's Administration during Bush and Obama.


Telemedicine Requires Broadband to Deliver Healthcare Benefits

Diagnostic imaging and video monitorng drive demand for high capacity and speeds

By David Salway
Broadband Expert

Updated April 01, 2015.
Broadband is an important facilitator of delivering long-distance clinical healthcare, remote patient monitoring and professional health-related education. Telemedicine is particularly important for patients in rural remote locations because of the scarcity of primary care physicians and specialists in remote areas of the country.
The delivery of telemedicine services include clinical services such as consultations, examinations and the real-time monitoring of patients.
Telemedicine also includes a number of non-clinical services such as doctor/patient communications, continuing medical education for healthcare providers, and physician training. E-health advocates point to the time and cost-saving elements of telemedicine which deliver critical medical services to residents of remote areas who would otherwise be unable to receive a high level of medical care.
FCC Considers Raising Broadband Speed Definition: Speed and bandwidth requirements still increasing
According to a recently published Reuters article written by Kathryn Doyle veterans with limited access to mental health facilities benefit from connecting with health professionals via phone or video.
continue reading below our video

  The article cites a publish medical study entitled Telemedicine-Based Collaborative Care for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder which concluded:
Telemedicine-based collaborative care can successfully engage rural veterans in evidence-based psychotherapy to improve PTSD outcomes.
Researchers used 265 middle-aged veterans with symptoms of PTSD as the study group, with half receiving traditional mental healthcare services, and the other half using video or voice applications as a way to communicate and treat patients.
  Researchers noted that patients in the telemedicine group had larger decreases in Post-traumatic Diagnostic Scale scores both the six and twelve month mark. 
Telemedicine will Drive Broadband Utilization in 2015: Congressional action includes 21st Century Cures Initiative
Telemedicine applications are one the most voracious consumers of bandwidth because of how much is required to support the transmission of streaming video and high resolution diagnostic imaging.
Gigabit Broadband Speeds Spur Innovation
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski made note of the importance of broadband and telemedicine when he opened the FCC's mHealth Summit in Washington DC earlier this year.
"Why have we gathered some of the nation’s leading mHealth experts at the FCC? We’re hosting this event at the FCC, because the FCC is the nation’s expert agency on communications technology – and innovation at the intersection of communications technology and health care is essential to the quality of care for all Americans. High-speed Internet, wired and wireless, is helping doctors and scientists do their jobs better and faster. It’s giving consumers access to better information, tools and technologies. It is transforming our health care system."
Telemedicine Becoming the New Standard in Healthcare
"Today, a “smart” pill box can send automatic reminders to a patient to take her daily medication, and alert her physician or family members if she skips it. New mobile diabetes management devices are freeing patients from the burden of logging their glucose measurements and making remote monitoring a seamless process."
Key recommendations established in the National Broadband Plan regarding telemedicine include establishing sufficient connectivity for health care delivery locations. Other recommendations include:
  • The FCC should replace the existing Internet Access Fund with a Health Care Broadband Access Fund.
  • The FCC should establish a Health Care Broadband Infrastructure Fund to subsidize network deployment to health care delivery locations where existing networks are insufficient.
  • The FCC should authorize participation in the Health Care Broadband Funds by long-term care facilities, off-site administrative offices, data centers and other similar locations.
  • Congress should consider providing support for for-profit institutions that serve particularly vulnerable populations.
There is no doubt that the field of telemedicine holds great economic potential.  According to a recently released report entitled Global Telemedicine Market Outlook to 2018 published by RNCOS, the global telemedicine market ($14.2 billion in 2012), is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.5 percent during 2012-2018. 

______________________________________________

HERE IS WHY GLOBAL POLS ARE SELLING OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES----POSING PROGRESSIVE----IT'S ABOUT MAKING K-12 ALL ONLINE CORPORATE BUSINESSES. IT'S NOT ABOUT QUALITY------IT'S ABOUT CHEAP AND PROFIT-DRIVEN. This is why they are selling our free TV airwaves.

'ConnectED is built atop the President’s challenge to connect 99% of American students in their classrooms and libraries with next-generation broadband and wireless connectivity within five years. He has also called on businesses, states, districts, schools, and communities to come together in support of this vision of next-generation classrooms, better able to meet the needs of competition in a global economy.

K-12 Education


In today’s global economy, a high-quality education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity—it is a prerequisite for success. Because economic progress and educational achievement are inextricably linked, educating every American student to graduate from high school prepared for college and for a career is a national imperative. The President has articulated a goal for America to once again lead the world in college completion by the year 2020, and all of President Obama’s education efforts aim toward this overarching objective.
To create an economy built to last, we need to provide every student with a complete and competitive education that will enable them to succeed in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation. President Obama has advanced reforms around four key objectives: 
  • Higher standards and better assessments that will prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace
  • Ambitious efforts to recruit, prepare, develop, and advance effective teachers and principals, especially in the classrooms where they are most needed
  • Smarter data systems to measure student growth and success, and help educators improve teaching and learning
  • New attention and a national effort to turn around our lowest-achieving schools.

ConnectED Initiative

President Obama’s ConnectED initiative will enrich K-12 education for America’s students by providing teachers with the best technology and the training to make the most of it, and empowering students through individualized learning and rich, digital content. Preparing our students with the skills they need to get good jobs and compete with other countries relies increasingly on interactive, personalized learning experiences driven by new technology.
ConnectED is built atop the President’s challenge to connect 99% of American students in their classrooms and libraries with next-generation broadband and wireless connectivity within five years. He has also called on businesses, states, districts, schools, and communities to come together in support of this vision of next-generation classrooms, better able to meet the needs of competition in a global economy.
In the first year since the President announced the ConnectED initiative, private-sector companies have committed to provide schools across the country with more than $2 billion worth of free hardware, software, educational content, and wireless connectivity. And the FCC has pledged to invest an additional $2 billion to connect 20 million more students to fast broadband and wireless in their classrooms, over the next two years, as a down-payment on meeting the President’s “99-in-5” connectivity goal.

_________________________________________
Below you see one state, Ohio, where all of the small TV broadcasters are being encouraged to sell-----as are public media tied to universities and public TV. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF FIGHTING AGAINST MEDIA MONOPOLY. Maryland has talked of selling its MPT---although its been corporate anyway----it is still vital for rebuilding our public airwaves locally as the American people are pushed off broadband. As Wall Street now tries to make WiFi sheik ----placing it in clothing and shoes----we need to know----THIS IS A HUGE WAY IN WHICH WE COMMUNICATE. Killing small businesses to create monopoly-----THAT'S WHAT CLINTON/BUSH WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS DO.
'"We have spectrum and we always need money," says PBS Chief Executive Paula Kerger, referring to member stations. She is worried that some areas could lose their access to local PBS stations, noting that some of its member stations have 20% of their audience receiving an over-the-air signal'.

THEY ARE OPENLY KILLING COMPETITION AND CREATING MONOPOLY
FCC Auction Promises Bonanza for Small TV Broadcasters

January 05, 2016, 09:31:00 PM EDT
By Dow Jones Business News


By Thomas Gryta
LIMA, Ohio--Workers accidentally struck oil here in 1885, putting this tiny city on the map as the world's biggest oil field--a valuable patch that John D. Rockefeller later controlled.
Now Lima, (pronounced lye-ma), a rust belt town of 38,000 people, has another highly sought-after resource. This time, the riches are above ground and the deep-pocketed buyer is the U.S. government.
The process gives small TV stations a chance to cash out just as their business faces challenges from online video, wireless services and shifting audience behavior. After multiple delays, the process is expected to begin in March. Nearly 2,000 stations across the country could join the auction to sell their broadcasting licenses.
In giant media markets like New York City and Los Angeles, the bidding will start out high. One station broadcasting in Manhattan, an affiliate of Telemundo, has an opening bid of $900 million. But smaller cities may hit the jackpot, too. In Lima, the first--and maximum--offer for its most-watched station is about $110 million.


Changing habits


The auction demonstrates the shift in technology taking place across the media landscape--and resources being adapted to meet new needs. Momentum is tilting from over-the-air television to the Internet. As people use their smartphones to stay connected and watch video on the go, more bandwidth is needed to provide that connectivity.
"The FCC's goal is to make the most efficient use of the spectrum," says Lawrence Chu, an investment banker who worked as an adviser to the agency. "It is in high demand."
The process will start off similar to a Dutch auction, in which values are set at a high level and then diminish until the FCC gets the licenses it needs at the lowest possible price. Once it determines the amount it will pay for each station, the agency will then turn around and sell the licenses to carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile US Inc. in a traditional auction with rising bids. Sprint Corp. has decided to skip the auction. Any difference in the amount paid out to the broadcasters and the resale will go in the U.S. treasury. If the bids from the buyers are too low, the whole process will restart.
Television stations that agree to sell their spectrum have two options: Take the full payout and go off the air, or be moved to another frequency for a lesser cut of the money. Either way, those channels could still be viewable on systems like cable and satellite. Stations that decide not to join the auction may be relocated to another spot on the dial whether they want to or not.
The FCC's auction is optional but the participation of certain stations in smaller markets could unlock important licenses in much larger markets. For example, channels relinquishing their airwaves in Lima could give the government more options for moving around stations in Toledo, which in turn could free up space in Detroit.
In Lima, stations could pull in as much as those in much bigger cities like Phoenix, a city nearly 40 times its size.
Like any auction, the outcome isn't a sure thing for any participant. Some stations could be frozen immediately, meaning their sale is accepted, while others could ultimately find that they aren't in demand.
Local media mogul Allan Block is one owner who has a quandary on his hands. The 61-year-old is the scion of a 115- year-old media dynasty which owns nearly all the local TV stations in Lima, a small cable television system--as well as the Toledo Blade newspaper and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. His twin brother John is editor in chief and publisher at both.
In a quirk that could only happen in a small-town market, Block Communications owns all four network affiliates in Lima. The same live nightly local news program is simulcast--both at 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.--across its NBC, CBS and ABC channels. The stations, including the local FOX channel, broadcast from a single 550-foot tower that sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
"Lima has never been a great growth market," says Mr. Block, who lives in Toledo, about an hour-and-half drive away. "But it is very steady."
Block's portfolio of local broadcast stations, which includes the Fox affiliate in Louisville, and an NBC station in Decatur, Ill., have opening bids of more than $1.2 billion from the FCC, he says. He has hired lawyers and financial advisers and is planning to jump into the auction.
To drum up interest in the auction, officials at the FCC spent months on the road trying to convince stations to give up their licenses. They even took the unusual step of enlisting Mr. Chu--now a managing director at investment bank Moelis & Co.--to make the pitch directly to station owners. The agenda for the roadshow listed Lima among the roughly 50 markets whose participation the agency deemed as potentially crucial.
The airwaves being shuffled around are prime for sending signals far into the countryside but are also good for penetrating deep into buildings, both qualities that are attractive for wireless service providers. The government's last airwaves auction--the first major sale since 2008--closed in January 2015 with bids of nearly $45 billion.
The dollar amounts connected to the auction are staggering for some of the stations in the government's sights, especially outfits such as PBS affiliates and religious broadcasters that are used to operating on shoestring budgets.
"We have spectrum and we always need money," says PBS Chief Executive Paula Kerger, referring to member stations. She is worried that some areas could lose their access to local PBS stations, noting that some of its member stations have 20% of their audience receiving an over-the-air signal.
"There are no do-overs," she says, "once you sell your spectrum, it is gone."
Tough choices
In Pittston, Pa., a town of 7,700 nestled between the bigger markets of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, local PBS channel WVIA has decided to enter the auction after months of deliberation. The FCC's opening bid for WVIA's broadcast license is more than $300 million.
The station occupied two rooms in a church at a local college when it was founded in 1966. It now resides in a small one-story building on a side road with few other businesses nearby. One of its most popular shows is "Pennsylvania Polka," which features locals dancing to a live polka band.
But it won't consider going off the air, President Tom Curra says, because it would lose its PBS affiliation and go against the station's stated mission of serving the public.
The channel, which has a $5 million annual budget, estimates its signal covers about a third of the state and that 10% to 15% of its viewers watch using over-the-air reception.
Although bids will likely fall from the opening price, a station like WVIA could still walk away with substantial funds. In a report, the FCC estimated in October 2014 that the median compensation for channels in the Pittston area would be $140 million--more than the $120 million projected for stations in Chicago and enough to cover WVIA's strained annual budget for decades.
The issue is delicate. In Bowling Green, Ohio, PBS station WBGU triggered public outcry when it said it was considering entering the auction and shutting down its broadcast. The station's signal covers Lima, but it is considered to be in the Toledo market. Feedback at local town hall meetings helped convince the station's owner, Bowling Green University, to keep it on the air--but it will enter the auction nonetheless.
"It is a very complicated issue and one of the challenges was separating the emotion from the facts," says university spokesman Dave Kielmeyer. "It was a painful process but it was a good process."
Back in Lima, nonprofit religious broadcaster WTLW could get an almost unthinkable amount of cash from the auction. The station, with 12 full-time workers and an annual budget of $1.3 million, hired consultants to help it reach a decision to enter the auction. It prefers to stay broadcasting but hasn't ruled out going off the air, says station President Kevin Bowers.
WTLW operates out of an old airport, a relic of the days when the city was served by commercial flights. Its programming tends to be family oriented, ranging from local sports and Christian-oriented shows, alongside reruns of The Donna Reed Show and The Beverly Hillbillies. The station's sports editors work out of the old waiting room and the studio was once the airplane hanger.
The station gets a third of its donations from over-the-air viewers and 12% of households in the viewing area depend on antennas. That has made the station sensitive to cutting off viewers, but it says it plans to use proceeds from the auction to invest in ways to deliver its programming other than on cable and satellite systems.
"We aren't blind to changing technology," says Mr. Bowers. "How people view is changing." The station, he says, is looking into wireless streaming and over-the-top options that would allow people to continue watching its offerings. " Even older viewers have an expectation of video on demand."
Weighing options
For Mr. Block, the issue is whether the final bids will be high enough to relinquish the airwaves above Lima. With four affiliates going over the air, he could free up some bandwidth by downgrading to standard definition from high definition for some of the over-the-air signals.

______________________________________________



OH, LOOK------ALL OF THIS CREATION OF MONOPOLY BY SELLING OFF OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES IS ILLEGAL------IT VIOLATES ALL OF OUR US ANTI-TRUST AND MONOPOLY LAWS AND CAN BE VOIDED-----KNOW WHAT? MARYLAND HAS MONOPOLY LAWS TOO! It looks as though social Democrats can simply VOID all monopolies operating in Baltimore and/or Maryland. Know who passes all this monopoly mess? ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLS----CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH/HOPKINS NEO-CONS. All they have done these few decades is create illegal monopolies.

CUMMINGS, CARDIN, SARBANES, MIKULSKI AND HER CANDIDATES EDWARDS AND VAN HOLLEN----ALL CREATED THIS MONOPOLY MESS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES ARE.
Here neo-conservative Larry Hogan shouting out against all this creation of monopoly? No, he's not a Republican just as those above are not Democrats!

OH REALLY?????--------------------'The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the federal agency that seeks to promote free and fair competition in interstate commerce'.


Let's see----do I want the Verizon package for $79 or do I want the Comcast package for $79?


What is Antitrust Law and Trade Regulation?


Definition of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law



Antitrust law aims to protect trade and commerce from unfair restraints, monopolies and price fixing. Antitrust law is primarily governed by two federal laws: the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Most states also have their own antitrust laws patterned on federal laws.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) investigates antitrust matters and is authorized to convene a grand jury to indict suspects. Civil remedies include injunctions, divestiture and/or cancellation of contracts. Civil and criminal penalties may apply if a company is determined to be in violation of antitrust laws. Criminal acts are punishable by large fines and/or imprisonment.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the federal agency that seeks to promote free and fair competition in interstate commerce. The FTC is tasked with many consumer protection duties, as well. It has exclusive jurisdiction to prohibit unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts.
Terms to Know
  • Sherman Act - A federal law that prohibits monopolies by limiting certain business practices, such as price fixing
  • Clayton Act - An amendment to the Sherman Act that places restrictions on mergers and acquisitions on companies that could lead to monopolies or other unfair business competition
  • Department of Justice (DOJ) - Federal law enforcement charged with investigating and enforcing federal laws, including antitrust laws such as the Sherman and Clayton acts
  • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) - A federal agency that seeks to promote free and fair competition in interstate commerce by protecting consumers from unfair competition tactics
  • Monopoly - The exclusive control of a particular market, including the power to control prices and exclude competition
  • Price Fixing - A usually illegal process of artificially dictating prices, rather than allowing the market and consumers determine prices through supply and demand
For more legal definitions, visit the FindLaw Legal Dictionary.
Other Considerations When Hiring an Antitrust and Trade Regulation Lawyer
Most antitrust issues arise when the DOJ or FTC investigates large companies about to merge. The mergers are often in the same industry and may involve unfair business tactics or outcomes. In these cases, the antitrust lawyers involved are usually the company's corporate attorneys. However, some corporations may not have an in-house antitrust specialist, so they may seek to hire an attorney who specializes in antitrust.
Smaller corporations and businesses may also be involved in antitrust issues. Small businesses often file complaints about unfair competition with the FTC. These businesses often hire antitrust attorneys in order to ensure that the process for filing a complaint is followed and to help make the most persuasive case for government action.
If you or your business is involved in an antitrust or trade regulation issue, contact an antitrust lawyer immediately to protect your rights and explore your legal options.




0 Comments

January 24th, 2016

1/24/2016

0 Comments

 
WE CAN REVERSE THIS EASY PEASY AS IT IS ALL ILLEGAL AND VIOLATES ANTI-TRUST MONOPOLY LAWS AND THREATENS OUR NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY---JUST GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS.

As Democratic labor and justice is killed with the dismantling of social Democracy by Republicans and Clinton/Obama neo-liberals----Republican voters thought for decades this was great.  They also are being told that bringing back global sweat shop factories will take only people of color to slavery---one thing Republican voters soon found out was that Bush/Hopkins neo-cons were the same global corporate pols as Clinton neo-liberals---

AND NOW REPUBLICAN VOTERS ARE CLAIMING ------ALL OF THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND AN ATTACK ON US SOVEREIGNTY. 

As social Democrats always shout to Republican voters----AN INJUSTICE FOR ONE BECOMES INJUSTICE FOR ALL.  So, rather than allowing growing tension against white Republicans and social Democrats ------let's work together to get rid of Bush/Hopkins neo-cons and Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberals.

Today I want to talk about how we reverse all of this and rebuild a strong American media that works for the people and allows small  media businesses
to prosper.


If you are living in a city you are probably being drowned in all that is social media----building online startup businesses----but no one is telling you to build a solid small media print journalism or small media TV, or be that small business telecommunications high-speed competition to the media monopolies----

AND THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU THAT ALL THE PEOPLE BUILDING BUSINESSES ONLINE WILL BE OUT OF BUSINESS AS BROADBAND TAKES ALL INTERNET TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.


Small Business Social Media


It’s time to consider an extension of your small business storefront and look into small business social media. Small retailers are having success selling socially on facebook. Virtual storefronts are proving to be a successful outlet for small businesses. If your small business is entertaining a new revenue stream, here are some insights to get on the right path and find funding social media for small businesses.


Facebook storefronts are operated exclusive of Facebook, powered by independent applications enabling you to customize your storefront. These applications offer a variety of options features, many are free, with upgrade options, while others charge require monthly subscription fee.
Funding Small Business Social Media CampaignsWhichever app you choose, getting a program started for small business social media is easy. Once your app is installed, you can add product listings, a welcome page, shopping cart and tools to promote your storefront. Next, personalize your storefront to reflect your brand, look for ways to engage and connect with your fans, post tips that relate to your industry; share information, pictures and helpful sites that might be of interest to your followers.
Getting Social With A Personal TouchAbove all, inject some personality into your page—this is a huge differentiator for small businesses and helps your small business social media so use it! Pin and tag updates along with photos to keeping your page dynamic. We encourage you to feature a product of the week or promote a special discount. Interact with our customers, engage them, and ask for feedback. Encourage participation by posting open-ended questions in your updates and continually immerse your business into the community. Do restrict the growth of your business. Part of funding social media for small businesses requires a small business owner to continually monitor issues relative to your industry and community. Make it a point of emphasis to continually make yourself & business available with your constituents without being overtly promotional. This will increase the visibility of your brand and build a stronghold within the community. With that said this is yet another tool to help promote your business, it’s not the recreation of the wheel, or the magic bullet. So test the waters, ask your fans and customers if they’d be interested in buying from you via Facebook.
Many small businesses are generating as much as 30 percent of their sales from Facebook, but remember that not everyone is part of social media, and many others may not feel comfortable conducting business through this medium.


________________________________________________
Baltimore is blessed with a wide variety of resources that could be our local media instead of being forced to watch as national media corporations try to push us off TV by making it too bad to watch. 

WE THE PEOPLE MUST RETURN TO BUILDING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BOTH ANALOG AND LOCAL DIGITAL RADIO, TV, AND PHONE.

The coming $1 trillion infrastructure funding if coming from a social Democrat Bernie Sanders as with FDR----would send that Federal funding to do just that----let the citizens decide where that funding will go----and it should go to building radio/TV analog towers------cell towers----and rebuilding our underground PUBLIC conduits shared with lots of small business telecomm corporations.  If Johns Hopkins wants to build a global and national telemedicine corporation using the internet----IT SHOULD BUILD ITS OWN INFRASTRUCTURE WITH WALL STREET.

Baltimore has a great art and film school in MICA----it can and should produce film, TV programming and with government funding tied to making sure it gives equal opportunity and access----we are well on our way to replacing national media stations thinking we are going to sit and watch advertisements over and over and over again.  As well, Baltimore has a great spoken word----hip hop-----theatre groups all of which could and should be on TV----and there is more local programming on our local TV station.  Peabody is best in the world for music of all kinds-----and a government funding to bring Peabody students and alum to our NEW  local TV stations -----marching bands from our high schools-----much better than the trash national media is filling our stations with on the march to ending free TV.



ANALOGUE TERRESTRIAL TV

Terrestrial television is a term which refers to modes of television broadcasting which do not involve satellite transmission or via underground cables.

Terrestrial television broadcasting dates back to the very beginnings of television as a medium itself and there was virtually no other method of television delivery until the 1950s with the beginnings of cable television, or community antenna television (CATV).
The first non-terrestrial method of delivering television signals that in no way depended on a signal originating from a traditional terrestrial source began with the use of communications satellites during the 1960s and 1970s of the twentieth century.
Analogue TV encodes the image and sound information and transmits them as an analogue signal in which the message transmitted by the broadcasting signal is composed of amplitude and/or frequency variations and modulated into a VHF or UHF carrier.
The analogue television picture is "drawn" several times on the screen (25 in PAL system) as a whole each time, as in a motion picture film, regardless of the content of the image.

Stop allowing them to push almost all Americans into what is the worst of internet services----WiFi-----they are doing that as a stop gap for those pushed off of internet as rates soar and service goes to global corporations.


How Much Does A Cell Tower Cost?
By Nick Foster
|
Jun 9, 2015



A common question we receive from property owners, or investors, is, “How Much Does A Cell Tower Cost?”. Like the construction of any improvement, the answer is generally – it depends. Cell phone companies can construct guyed towers, monopoles, stealth faux trees, or façade mount the antennas to a building. There are many construction solutions readily available to cell phone companies looking to improve their network.
We want to share with you a few factors that influence cost:


1. All Cell Towers Need Two Things – Power and a Phone Line

To get started, all cell towers need electricity and access to a landline. The cost of pulling utilities and/or the phone line from the street or a nearby property, will be incorporated in the cost of a project. Sometimes the local utility company will cover the cost of pulling power, which is good news for the carrier.


2. Local Zoning Ordinances Influence Design

In our home market of San Diego, California, monopole, or guyed wire construction is banned, due to local zoning ordinances. If a cell phone company wants to construct a cell tower, they must construct a “stealth facility”, such as a  faux monopine tree, eucalyptus tree, or a rooftop element architecturally integrated into the building. No exposed antennas are allowed to be seen by the general public.
In rural America, or areas with little to no zoning restrictions, it is a different story. You may not be able to drive a few miles without seeing steel poles towering into the sky. So construction materials are influenced by local zoning ordinances.


3. OK, So What Is The Cost Already?

An average estimate for cell tower construction can be anywhere from $100,000.00 – $350,000.00 depending on materials, construction, labor, etc. However, we have worked on projectswhere the construction costs incurred were closer to $1,000,000.00 by the time the project was completed.

_________________________________________________

Citizens across the US are shouting to get cell towers off our school grounds----all of the complaints come from health threats to radiation.  None of these concerns are with the fact that telecomm corporations like Verizon are behind these towers and global pols are using what they think will be corporate school grounds as cheap real estate for new global corporate telecom infrastructure.

They don't see this school ground as public----WE DO and no, we don't want cell towers there.  More importantly we don't want Verizon or any monopoly building cell towers when we need to build our own for our city and surrounding region and its local programming and local phone services.

Coalition questions cell towers on school grounds


Group worries about health, environmental risks; cell companies say they're safe

UPDATED 6:57 AM EST Feb 03, 2015

BALTIMORE --Growing reliance on devices such as cellphones and tablets means more and more cell towers and antennas are cropping up.  But should they be built on school grounds?

Parent Jessica O'Kane helped lead opposition to a proposed cellphone tower near a playground at her children's school, Piney Orchard Elementary in Anne Arundel County.
"I would have moved. Myself and a lot of other parents would have moved if this went forward," O'Kane said. "There was going to be no negotiation with us. We were not going to say, 'Oh, OK, well if you give us a new playground, we'll let you go ahead.' No. We don't want it. We absolutely didn't want it."
The main complaint was that cell towers emit radio frequency waves. The worry is that they could expose children to serious health risks.
But the Federal Communications Commission has said: "Exposure levels on the ground are typically thousands of times below safety limits." It also said, "There is no reason to believe such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students."
Parents question money behind decisions
Some parents are still skeptical, however, and they think money may be clouding the issue.
School districts can generate a lot of revenue by renting space for cellular towers and antennas, the 11 News I-Team's Barry Simms reported. There are plenty of them already in Anne Arundel, Prince George's and Montgomery counties.
In Baltimore City, two schools have cell towers on their grounds, and a dozen have cellular antennas, most of which are on the roofs. Last year alone, the city school district collected more than $720,000 in rent, Simms reported.
A Maryland coalition to halt cellphone towers on schools grounds said it wonders if it's really a fair exchange.
"Within footsteps of a child is this antenna that's radiating signals, and we very rarely have any technical knowledge and insight into what harm that signal may or may not be causing," said coalition member Kim Trueheart.
"We're here to educate the parents to get everybody paying attention and to speak with one very loud voice statewide," said coalition member Janice Sartucci.
Cell tower company CEO talks safety, inevitability
The I-Team traveled to a Virginia school to speak with the president of Milestone Communications, which has cell towers in several Maryland counties. President and CEO Len Forkas said his company's towers are safe.

"The school sites are very valuable sites because they are large parcels of land. We have lots of choices where we can site the tower where it will have the least amount of visual impact for the community," Forkas said.
Verizon Wireless and Milestone have proposed a cellular tower disguised as a tree for Severn and Magothy River middle schools in Anne Arundel County. Coalition families are fighting it. In addition to health concerns, they said they worry about possible hazardous leaks from equipment that's so close to a critical watershed.
"It's just got to be a big concern for anybody who's environmentally conscious," said Arnold resident Collin Murphy.
In Baltimore, City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke said she wants a moratorium.
"I'm calling for no contracts or agreements to be signed that bring these towers onto public school property in Baltimore City," Clarke said.
But that could be difficult because of federal telecommunications laws. Milestone doesn't have any contracts with Baltimore City schools but said the increasing need makes them inevitable.
"The number of towers that are needed has to double in the next 10 years to keep pace with the way in which people are using their wireless devices. The infrastructure has got to be closer to where people are using the service," Forkas said.
He said sometimes that means schools, but the coalition hopes it can create big enough hurdles so that cell towers will be built someplace else.
School districts in Howard, Harford, Carroll, Cecil and Baltimore counties told the I-Team that they do not have any cell towers or antennas on public school grounds. Some private schools do.

____________________________________________
As we work to install a Congress and President not attached to global corporations by rebuilding the Democratic Party free from Clinton/Obama neo-liberals-----who then will reverse this FCC rule killing all analog and telling us it is good for America to move all transmissions to digital while the only intent was to hand all frequencies to global digital corporations-----we must start rebuilding these structures locally-----the FCC law did not address local transmissions-----and we are going to use Federal infrastructure funding to build these in all US cities.


'On June 12, 2009, the FCC required all high-power analog U.S. television stations to turn off their signals and move to a digital-only transmission'.

Low Power Television (LPTV) Service

The FCC created the Low-Power Television (LPTV) service in 1982 to provide opportunities for locally-oriented television service in small communities. These communities may be in rural areas or individual communities within larger urban areas. LPTV service offers programming tailored to the interests of viewers in small localized areas in a less expensive and more flexible way than traditional full-service/power TV stations. It has created opportunities for new entry into television broadcasting, provided a means of local self-expression, and permitted fuller use of the broadcast spectrum. LPTV stations are currently undertaking their transition to digital operations.
LPTV Digital Transition

Although Congress established a hard deadline of June 12, 2009 for full-power TV stations to cease analog broadcasts and begin operating only in digital, the statutory deadline did not apply to low power television stations, TV translator and Class A television stations (referred to herein as "LPTV stations"). Therefore, while all full-power television stations have ceased over-the-air analog broadcasting, many LPTV stations are continuing to transmit analog signals.

The FCC established September 1, 2015 as the date for the termination of all analog low-power television service. Since that date, analog television should no longer exist in the United States. Until that time, LPTV stations were allowed to continue to operate their analog facilities.
LPTV stations had the opportunity to seek either an on-channel digital conversion of their existing analog facilities (“flash cut”) or construct and operate a second digital companion channel during the remainder of the digital transition. However all LPTV stations were required to decide a single digital channel to continue to operate after the September 1, 2015 transition date.
LPTV Station Operation

LPTV stations are operated by diverse groups and organizations - high schools and colleges, churches and religious groups, local governments, large and small businesses and individual citizens. LPTV modes of operation and programming vary widely. These include satellite-delivered programming services, syndicated programs, movies and a wide range of locally-produced programs. LPTV stations sometimes tailor program segments or entire schedules to specific viewer groups (on the basis of age, language or particular interest).
On the technical side, LPTV stations transmit on one of the standard VHF (2-13) or UHF (14-51) television channels. The distance at which a station can be viewed depends on a variety of factors - antenna height, transmitter power, transmitting antenna and the nature of the environment (rural or urban, hilly or flat terrain). The FCC does not allocate channels for LPTV service. Applicants select channels and apply during a given time period.
Analog LPTV stations are limited to an effective radiated power of 3 kilowatts (VHF) and 150 kilowatts (UHF). Digital LPTV stations are limited to an effective radiated power of 3 kilowatts (VHF) and 15 kilowatts (UHF). There are no limits on transmitter output power and on antenna height, as long as the tower structure has been registered with the FCC.
Owning an LPTV Station

There is no limit on the number of LPTV stations that may be owned by any one entity. Current broadcast licensees, cable operators and newspapers may own LPTV stations.


Applying For an LPTV Station

New applications for digital LPTV and TV translator stations are only accepted during designated filing window periods. Applications for new analog stations are no longer accepted. The FCC announces these window periods at least 30 days before the opening of the window. The announcement provides details on how to file. Interested applicants should periodically check the FCC's Media Bureau website for window announcements.
Interference Requirements for LPTV Stations

LPTV stations have “secondary spectrum priority” to full-service stations. This means LPTV stations must not cause interference to the reception of existing or future full-service television stations, must accept interference from full-service stations, and must yield to new full-service stations where interference occurs. For more information regarding interference requirements, see Part 74 subpart G of the Commission’s rules.
When there is interference between cable systems and LPTV stations, a “first in time, first in right” policy applies. Under this policy, the cable system or LPTV station that had initial use of the channel has first priority and is not responsible for correcting the interference.
Programming and Programming Content

LPTV stations are subject to a minimum of program-related regulations. There are no prescribed amounts of non-entertainment programming or local programming, and there are no limits on commercials, and no minimum hours of operation. However, the broadcast of obscene material is prohibited at all times, and the broadcast of indecent and profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Ancillary and Supplementary Services

Licensed digital LPTV stations and permittees operating pursuant to Special Temporary Authority (STA) must submit an FCC Form 317 (www.fcc.gov/forms) - (Annual DTV Ancillary and Supplementary Services Report) by December 1st of each year. Stations must report whether they have provided ancillary and supplementary services at any time during the twelve-month period ending on the preceding September 30th. If they have, they are required to remit to the Commission an amount equal to 5% of the gross revenues derived from these services.


__________________________________________________

The trend will have most Americans on WiFi as rates soar----and this is the trend because it operates on the spectrum not needed by high-speed internet=======and it does not have good prospects for the future because global telecom will not invest on the needed infrastructure for quality service.

'WiFi uses the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum, which often crowded with other devices such as Bluetooth, microwave ovens, cordless phones, or video sender devices, and among many others. This may cause degradation in performance'.

WiFi Disadvantages

Due the fact that WiFi are still relatively new, there are considerably more disadvantages to users. Let's have a look at them:
The use of WiFi band that is 2.4 GHz does not require a license in most countries provided that is stays below limit of 100mW and one accepts interference from other sources; including interference which causes the users devices to no longer function.


The spectrum assignments and operational limitations are not consistent worldwide.
Power consumption is fairly high compared to some other standards, making the battery life and heat a concern to some users.

WiFi uses the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum, which often crowded with other devices such as Bluetooth, microwave ovens, cordless phones, or video sender devices, and among many others. This may cause degradation in performance.
WiFi networks have limited range. A typical WiFi home router might have a range of 45m (150ft) indoors and 90m (300ft) outdoors. Ranges may also vary as WiFi is no exception to the physics of radio wave propagation with frequency band.
The most common wireless encryption standard, wired equivalent privacy or WEP has been shown to be breakable even when it has been correctly configured.
Access points could be used to steal personal and confidential information transmitted from WiFi consumers.

Intervention of a closed or encrypted access point with other open access points on the same or a nearby channel can prevent access to the open access points by others in the area. It poses a high problem in high-density areas such as large apartment blocks where many residents are operating WiFi access points.


Inter-operability issues between brands or deviations can cause limited connection or lower output speeds.
Free access points can be used by the malicious to anonymous to initiate an attack that would be extremely difficult to track beyond the owner of the access point.



0 Comments

January 22nd, 2016

1/22/2016

0 Comments

 
WHAT??????????????    YOU MEAN AS OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS ARE POSING PROGRESSIVE AND TELLING DEMOCRATIC VOTERS THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR NET NEUTRALITY THEY ARE VOTING FOR AND PUSHING THE SALE OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES TO GLOBAL CORPORATE TELECOMS KNOWING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE PUSHED OUT OF INTERNET ACCESS? 


I was a decades-long listener of NPR but stopped cold in 2010 when it was clear they were now GLOBAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.  What was once socially progressive was now completely Wall Street Clinton neo-liberal and Bush neo-con. The article below shows how national media is deliberately MISINFORMING the American public----and working to make Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals LOOK progressive when they are not.

The media's focus was on a vote by the FCC in what they termed 'net neutrality' and framed it as protecting the internet for all citizens and small businesses.  So, justice organizations like MOVE ON which pushed this net neutrality issue ----WHICH IS VITAL TO ALL AMERICANS-----and then claimed a victory with this FCC vote----AND HAVE NOT EDUCATED AT ALL AS TO WHY THE VOTE TO SELL OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES WILL END NET NEUTRALITY.


It was the push by this same FCC and Obama to sell public airwaves and then setting the policy for sale so that only the big corporations and billionaires could afford to buy these air wave frequencies at the lower end THAT WILL END NET NEUTRALITY.  We will take a look at the Clinton neo-liberals who posed progressive as if they were fighting for net neutrality when they voted to sell public airwaves especially at the lower frequency to only global corporations and the rich.

DID THE JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAME OUT FOR NET NEUTRALITY THEN COME OUT TO EDUCATE AS TO HOW THIS FCC SELL OF OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES KILL NET NEUTRALITY?  IT NOT, THAT MEANS THE LEADERS OF THAT ORGANIZATION WORK FOR CLINTON WALL STREET NEO-LIBERALS-----


It is no accident that this NPR report was written from Johns Hopkins' WYPR------and that is why it does not educate as to the bait and switch making global pols look like they are protecting the American people when they are not.

America

The FCC's Net Neutrality Vote: Here's What You Need To Know

Updated February 26, 20151:21 PM ET Published February 26, 20153:08 AM ET
Eyder Peralta


Protesters demonstrate in favor of net neutrality across the street from the Comcast Center in Philadelphia.

Matt Rourke/AP Later this morning, the Federal Communications Commission will take a vote on adopting new rules that would keep the Internet neutral.
Update at 1 p.m. ET 2/26: FCC Adopts Net Neutrality
By a 3-2 vote, the FCC votes to adopt net neutrality rules to "protect the open Internet." Our original post continues:
Here's a guide to what all of this means.
— What does net neutrality mean?
Here's the Cliffs Notes version from NPR's Elise Hu:
"Net neutrality is the concept that your Internet provider should be a neutral gateway to everything on the Internet, not a gatekeeper deciding to load some sites slower than others or impose fees for faster service."
In other words, it's a concept in which Internet service providers (ISPs) don't discriminate when it comes to Internet traffic.
Without net neutrality rules, ISPs could theoretically take money from companies like Netflix or Amazon to speed up traffic to their sites.
NPR's Laura Sydell explained one hypothetical like this:
"More than 30 percent of Internet traffic at peak times comes from Netflix, according to studies. So Verizon might say, 'Netflix, you need to pay us more.' Or maybe Verizon strikes a deal with Amazon and says your prime video service can get speedier delivery to the home and we're going to slow down Netflix."
— What is the FCC voting on?
The Federal Communications Commission is voting on whether to reclassify broadband access as a "telecommunications service under Title II."
In layman's terms, the FCC is looking to reclassify broadband as a utility, which would give the commission more regulatory power over Internet providers.

— What prompted this FCC vote?
Back in 2010, the FCC actually passed rules to keep the Internet neutral. But those rules were challenged by Verizon and in January of 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC did not have the regulatory power over broadband to issue those rules.
The court, however, said that the FCC could reclassify broadband and that would give it broad regulatory powers.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler decided to go that direction in February.
Earlier this week, Republicans in Congress dropped opposition to the proposed rules, saying they were not going to pass a bill without any Democratic support.
— What would the proposed rules do?
The proposed rules are pretty lengthy, but from an FCC fact sheet, here are the three things that the rules would ban that matter most to consumers:
"No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
"No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
"No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration — in other words, no 'fast lanes.' This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates."

YouTube
— What does John Oliver have to do with all this?
The comedian John Oliver brought this issue to the forefront when he dedicated 14 minutes on his program to explain why net neutrality is so important.
He called on his viewers to write to the FCC to encourage them to adopt new rules. His call — and the enormous response — broke the commission's website.
A bunch of big Internet sites — Netflix, Etsy and Foursquare among them — joined the chorus in September when they took part in "Internet Slowdown Day," presenting their users with symbolic loading icons "to remind everyone what an Internet without net neutrality would look like."


___________________________________________
YOU MAY THINK THESE EUROPEAN POLS ARE VOTING AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY-----BUT THEY VOTED AGAINST THE BILL PASSED BY US CONGRESS----THE ONE THAT WILL END CITIZEN ACCESS TO THE INTERNET.

Remember, Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are working only for global corporations so net neutrality to global corporations means------making the net neutral for global corporations----it has nothing to do with citizens accessing the internet.  They don't want one global corporation getting kick-backs to more access to more internet speed over another global corporation  PERIOD.

Below you see Europe taking the right stance------it does not TRICK citizens into believing pols have protected net neutrality with broad and vague language -------this article show politicians voting down the same net neutrality bill that passed the US Congress-----because they wanted strong language in the bill that this was net neutrality FOR ALL----ESPECIALLY CITIZENS.

So, all of Maryland pols are Wall Street Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons and all voted for this BAD POLICY ON NET NEUTRALITY while PRETENDING to be protecting the citizens of Maryland and Baltimore. 

BALTIMORE'S MARYLAND ASSEMBLY POLS AND BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR ARE THE STRONGEST PUSHERS OF DEREGULATION AND CONSOLIDATION POLICIES MAKING BALTIMORE TOTALLY CAPTURED BY GLOBAL MEDIA.


Technology

European Parliament votes against net neutrality amendments

By Chris Baraniuk Technology reporter
  • 27 October 2015
  • From the section Technology


Image caption

The rules have implications for how internet companies are allowed to deliver data to customers

The European Parliament has voted against a set of rules intended to safeguard "net neutrality" in the EU.
A series of amendments to a regulation on how internet traffic is managed in Europe were all rejected by MEPs.
Proponents of net neutrality, who demand that web traffic be treated equally by networks, have already criticised the move.
The existing legislation, which was accepted, will be developed into regulations.

Campaigners have said that provisions for protecting net neutrality in the existing text of the rules are too vague and many worry that it will be easy for internet firms to strike deals with content providers which may not be advantageous for everyone.
For example, it is thought that so-called "zero rating" agreements, in which customers can access certain sites and services for free outside their data plans, might become more widespread.
While this could be beneficial for those who want to access content from those providers, others worry that it will stifle innovation.
The rules, however, do stipulate that network companies will not be able to offer or market paid-for access to "fast lanes". Traffic management, they add, should be based on objective technical requirements.
Clear vote

Although some campaigners had suggested there might be growing support for the amendments within the parliament, all were voted down in large majorities.

It is thought that many MEPs would have been reluctant to begin a process of amending the regulation given that it might have delayed another aspect of the rules - the abolition of mobile data roaming charges.

Media caption

Net neutrality: What does it mean?
The result is "hardly surprising" according to legal expert Chris Marsden at the University of Sussex, given that many of the major parties represented in the parliament all supported the regulation text without amendments.
The Body of European Regulators (BEREC) would now have nine months to issue guidelines to bodies like Ofcom in the UK, he added.
"So, [by] September next year we will have the guidelines and the real enforcement work begins," he told the BBC.
Dr Marsden also said there were still plenty of unknowns, such as what form regulations on "zero ratings" and fast and slow lane services might actually take.
There was also the issue of how laws in the Netherlands, Slovenia and Finland - which all have special net neutrality protections in place - would be affected.
Some initial guidelines, Dr Marsden added, would not be ready until 2016.

'Regrettable' decision

Michael Theurer, a liberal German MEP described the outcome as "regrettable" and added that he felt the regulations as passed do not include a clear definition of net neutrality to inform regulators.
Prior to the vote, the inventor of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee and a host of tech companies had expressed their support for the amendments and urged MEPs to vote them through.
Firms which has openly supported the amendments included:
  • Netflix
  • Reddit
  • Kickstarter
  • Vimeo
  • Foursquare
  • Soundcloud
"The fact is that what we use the internet for in 2015 is vastly different from those early days when Tim Berners-Lee was inventing the web," commented Chris Green of business consultancy Lewis as he pointed out that the rise of video streaming had placed extra burdens on network companies.
"Maintaining that information flow is an expensive process and the cost of running that infrastructure is falling on the shoulders of ISPs.
"For them, a two-tier internet makes much more sense," he told the BBC.

What is net neutrality?

The idea that data should be ferried from place to place as quickly as possible, regardless of what it is, is how most people assume the internet works.
That's the essence of net neutrality.
However, it's possible to decide to prioritise certain types of data over others - perhaps, for example, by charging the producers of such data a fee to make sure their content gets delivered promptly.
For big video streaming sites, the prospect is worrying. They could find themselves coughing up lots of money in fees simply to give their users the same experience as before.
Some argue, however, that such fees are fair since it costs internet service providers a lot of money to keep providing such content, no matter how popular the streaming sites become.

Image caption Proponents of net neutrality say it's the best way to enable free and open competition on the web

How could the rules affect internet use?

Part of the problem with the rules in their current form, argued Joe McNamee at the European Digital Rights campaign group, is that they are ambiguous.

"As the text currently stands there is no indication as to how much abuse of dominance would be permissible under this arrangement," he told the BBC.

The sort of scenarios that could impact internet use include the creation of "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" or the creation of "zero ratings" in which some services may be accessed without using up any of the internet user's data quota.
In Belgium, for example, some mobile phone companies currently allow unlimited access to Twitter and Facebook while all other data usage is part of a monthly plan. In a few countries such as the Netherlands, such practices are not allowed.

Who had argued that the amendments be adopted?

Besides a host of net neutrality campaigners, inventor of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee had added his voice to those supporting the amendments.
"If adopted as currently written, these rules will threaten innovation, free speech and privacy, and compromise Europe's ability to lead in the digital economy," he wrote in a blog.

WHAT????  YOU MEAN THE US VERSION OF NET NEUTRALITY THREATENS INNOVATION, FREE SPEECH, AND PRIVACY?  HOW GLOBAL CORPORATE OF THE US CONGRESS AND OBAMA.

And a string of tech companies signed a letter to the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, asking MEPs to adopt the amendments.
The firms included Netflix, Tumblr, Vimeo, Kickstarter and Reddit.
"I was contacted by a number of start-ups and investors because they were deeply concerned about the impact of the European Parliament's network neutrality proposals on start-up innovation in Europe," Stanford professor Barbara van Schewick, who helped pen the letter, told the BBC.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Tom Wheeler, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, has overseen a long-running debate on net neutrality



Do other countries have net neutrality?

Interestingly, three countries within the EU - Netherlands, Slovenia and Finland - already have a range of net neutrality rules enshrined in law.

These laws might have to be altered depending on how the new, EU-wide rules are interpreted by regulators later.
Elsewhere, net neutrality has received some regulatory protection in the United States after a vote in February this year placed new restrictions on what deals could be sought by internet firms with content providers.
But in other countries, such as India, "zero rating" is allowed.
"It's a fragmented picture across the board," said Dr Marsden.
"It's an extremely difficult area and there are probably no absolutely right answers."

____________________________________________
I am using NPR and American Public Media with MarketPlace today to show how our national PUBLIC MEDIA is as captured by global corporations as our private---Congress gutted funding of NPR and national public media ---a Republican goal for decades as with Clinton neo-liberals-----and opened these public media to selling advertising for operational costs.  So, most support comes from corporate donation and/or outright purchase of airtime for corporate advertisement.  The laws regarding public media state as they do in Maryland and Baltimore------to be public the majority of fund raising must come from individual donors.  So, national public media is now Global Chamber of Commerce----and MarketPlace dominates in all talks about economy.....and it is always hiding the real goals. 

NATIONAL PUBLIC MEDIA WAS ALLOWED TO BE TAKEN CORPORATE BY A CONGRESS PRETENDING SYSTEMIC CORPORATE FRAUD OF OUR US TREASURY LAST DECADE NEEDED AUSTERITY OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO REPLACE REVENUE IN GOVERNMENT COFFERS----AND GUTTED FUNDING TO OUR NATIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC MEDIAS AND IGNORED ENFORCING THAT INDIVIDUAL DONORS MUST DRIVE PUBLIC MEDIA FUNDING.

This is how Johns Hopkins and its WYPR expanded and now has 3 stations---all called public----yet filled with corporate advertising and corporate donations with very little individual donations.


Our public media used to be the source of Fairness Doctrine---giving real opposing policy ----this is yet another loss to Americans needing counter-point to stop propaganda.

Below you see this report makes it seem progressive---after all, they are auctioning the most valuable public air waves vital to our national security for 'payroll tax cuts and unemployment'.  This 'sliver of spectrum' is never defined as that spectrum that allows national air wave coverage-----ergo, selling these airwaves to global corporations will prohibit the American citizens from having a national TV industry.

So all that debate about extending unemployment which allowed states to opt-out----or allowed states to juke unemployment stats to opt-out----AND MOST STATES DID----just to hide the fact they were selling vital public airwaves.
  NPR and MarketPlace APM always act as if the American people are demanding more broadband and internet applications when most Americans do not use most APPS.  It is like having hundreds of cable stations when most people watch just a few.  When NPR and APM were truly socially liberal----they would be the ones shouting like I am----educating as to why all this is bad.



Congress finds funds in the airwaves

By Bob Moon
February 17, 2012 | 12:00 AM

Parts of the broadcast spectrum will be auctioned off to help cover the costs of the payroll tax cut and extended long-term unemployment benefits. Even a sliver of spectrum could bring a big chunk of cash.

Kai Ryssdal: The bipartisan meeting of the minds in Washington over the payroll tax cut and extended unemployment benefits became official today. There was some nose-holding by members on both sides of the aisle as they voted, but the House and Senate did approve the social security tax holiday that will continue through the end of the year. Millions of americans who've spent long months trying to find a job will keep getting long-term unemployment benefits, although the program will wind down as part of the deal. The current 99-week maximum for benefit checks will be trimmed to 73 weeks by September.
Political compromise, though, most definitely does not come cheap. $120 billion over the next five years is the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Where are they gonna find the money? For one thing, Congress plans to auction off parts of something called the spectrum.
Our senior business correspondent Bob Moon walks us through the selling of the public airwaves.
Bob Moon: You've got your AM and FM radio, TV stations, Citizens' Band, police, fire, military, air traffic control, radar -- and even car-door key fobs. They all use different frequencies of the radio spectrum. But it's the exploding popularity of smartphones and streaming video that's turned wireless onramps to the information superhighway into a frustrating crawl at times. And the Federal Communications Commission is only expecting the jam to get worse.
Glenn Fleishman is a tech writer for The Economist online.
Glenn Fleishman: Just like you could only fly a certain number of planes through the air at the same time, wireless spectrum works in much the same way. You have a certain amount of air space, and you can only send a certain amount of  wireless data or voice data through that space.
The FCC's answer is to clear more space in the wireless spectrum, and sell it to the highest bidder. Open frequencies are in high demand, even as channels set aside for the nation's TV broadcasters go unused. Christian Sandvig is a media professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He says most of us have cable.  
Christian Sandvig: By some estimates, you might say about 9 percent of the population of the United States is watching television over the air, and dropping. On the other hand, the population of people who want to use cell phones, especially smartphones, to do things like browse the Web, keeps increasing.
So Congress has decided to auction off slivers of the spectrum, hoping to raise around $22 billion. TV stations will be given a small share of the proceeds, if they agree to give up the channels they were authorized to use for free.


Sandvig: Here -- if you just get off this spectrum, we'll give you some money.
You could call it making money out of thin air.
I'm Bob Moon for Marketplace. 

________________________________________________

Obama and Congressional neo-liberals joined Republicans to support these FCC policies of selling airwaves vital to national security to what will be global corporations----the FCC was allowed to write the policy in ways that would FORCE LOCAL STATIONS TO WANT TO SELL THEIR TV AND RADIO STATIONS to profit from the sales-----in other words-----the FCC pushed so much consolidation of the American media industry to the same few global media corporations that it made our local stations feel they needed to get out of the business.....THERE GOES COMPETITION-----BROAD PROGRAMMING----AND HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE.

Maryland saw its public stations tied to universities sell out their stations----of course that is from where we get most of our local community voice---although Maryland had that voice captured to corporations as well.

Obama and the FCC as well as our Clinton neo-liberal and Republican Congress are telling us this is all about bringing revenue to our US Treasury-----the amount brought from these sales of our public air waves would not even cover the hundred of billions of dollars Obama's IRS ignored in allowing systemic corporate tax evasion these several years-----and is not even a speck of revenue lost in last decade's corporate fraud of tens of trillions of dollars.  Over a trillion dollars was sent to global corporations under the 'stimulus' all used to expand overseas----

SO NONE OF THESE SALES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BRINGING REVENUE TO FEDERAL COFFERS AND IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HARMING NATIONAL SECURITY AND OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS TO ACCESS WHAT HAS BECOME A VITAL UTILITY----THE INTERNET.

You won't hear this on NPR----our any of our local public media stations like WYPR----they don't want the American people to understand where all these policies lead----DON'T TELL THEM THE GOALS!

Once again, all of these policies are illegal----they violate all of our US Constitution and Federal laws against monopoly and anti-trust.  They are a threat to our national security----as well as state and local security as all media falls into the hands of global media corporations.  This is what Europe is fighting as it makes its net neutrality laws as in the article above----

WHILE IN THE US----ALL LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND POLS THAT SHOULD BE SHOUTING LOUDLY ARE LED NATIONALLY BY CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL LEADERS.


TV stations feel 'squeezed' by airwave auction
by AP11 Apr 20130
(AP) TV stations feel ‘squeezed’ by airwave auction


By RYAN NAKASHIMA
AP Business Writer
LAS VEGAS

As the federal government tries to encourage companies like AT&T and Verizon to create bigger, faster mobile networks, TV broadcasters are feeling like the farmers of yesteryear who were asked to sell their land to make way for the nation’s highways.

Broadcasters own a valuable swath of invisible real estate on the airwaves and just like farmers, their livelihoods depend on cultivating that fertile space. But the FCC believes clearing new lanes of over-the-air bandwidth will ease mobile network congestion, which leads to dropped calls, stuttering video and hanging emails.

Broadcasters say they are already feeling the pinch after giving up precious airwaves in the transition to digital TV in 2009. They are worried that their businesses may be in jeopardy as the government embarks on an unprecedented auction. They fret they’ll be short-changed in a complex process that is expected to rake billions of dollars into federal coffers.

“We’ve already been squeezed once,” said Gordon Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, on the sidelines of the industry’s annual gathering, NAB Show, which wrapped up Thursday. “We’re being squeezed twice now. There’s no more juice in that squeeze.”

Dozens of stations nationwide are expected to sell voluntarily _ and go out of business _ to make way for these new mobile data highways. The process relies on a complicated “reverse auction” that involves multiple steps, each fraught with the potential for confusion.

The government wants to clear 500 megaHertz of spectrum by 2020, with 120 mHz coming from TV stations. That’s the equivalent of 20 TV stations in each market across the country. Not every market has that many TV stations, so the FCC will likely clear the path it needs merely by shuffling broadcasters around.

In February, the FCC outlined how its plan would work. Starting in late 2014, TV stations will submit bids detailing how much they would accept for either going off the air, moving to a lower channel number, or sharing a channel with another station.


REMEMBER, THE LOWER CHANNEL NUMBERS WILL BE TAKEN BY GLOBAL MEDIA SO MOVING THERE WILL END IN BEING FORCED TO MERGE---OR AS BELOW A SMART MAN SAYS 'BAMBOOZLED'.

Mobile phone carriers will then submit bids for how much they would pay to use potential new airwaves. The FCC hopes to match buyers to sellers, and “repack” the airwaves as much as possible to give wireless companies the use of singular bands across the country.

The repacking could result in some TV stations being forced to relocate their broadcast towers and change channel numbers on the dial. As the auction gets closer, TV station owners’ anxiety is growing.

“You could get bamboozled here,” said Mark Fehlig, an industry consultant in Lawrenceville, Ga.


Station owners don’t know which stations might sell _ the process will remain anonymous until the last minute _ and sellers don’t know if their bids will be accepted and for how much. Moving TV stations along the U.S. borders will require cooperation from Canada and Mexico so any changes don’t interfere with signals in those countries.

Meredith Corp., which owns 13 TV stations, is concerned about its CBS affiliate WNEM in Flint, Mich.
The FCC’s repacking could have an effect on its signal in its own market and in nearby Detroit. Meredith also has to consider that it competes with signals coming from the Canadian city of Sarnia, Ontario, just 70 miles east. Most people receive local TV stations feeds through pay TV providers like cable and satellite companies, but if any homes that rely on antennas lose service, it could result in some angry phone calls.

“There’s so much uncertainty about how that might work,” said Paul Karpowicz, president of Meredith’s local media group, who added that the company has no intention of selling out. “Our issue is simply the collateral damage as it relates to repacking.”


Fears aside, the entire process could result in a big windfall for the U.S. government.

In the nationwide transition from analog to digital over-the-air TV signals in 2009, the government created new space on the airwaves
by packing broadcasters closer together, and it raised $20 billion by selling off about 50 mHz to wireless carriers. The goal of this auction, to sell more than double that, could raise even more.

The government expects to profit handsomely from the difference between what wireless carriers are willing to pay and what struggling TV stations would accept for closing up shop.

Some industry players believe the government is meddling in what would better be left to the private market.


Preston Padden, executive director of a group of interested TV station sellers called the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition,
is worried that the government’s profit motive could result in the sellers receiving less money than they could by negotiating the sale of their broadcast licenses on their own.

He represents more than 40 TV stations in major markets like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia, that would sell if the price is right. None are affiliates of major networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox. But their cooperation could be essential if the auction is to succeed in cities where mobile data traffic is the most clogged.

Padden complains that the process is “only as messy as it is because the government’s in the middle.”

“If the FCC tries to administer the prices to keep them low, they have alternatives and there are other things they can do with the spectrum,” he said.


Some broadcasters also worry that the auction could harm diversity of programming, since the TV stations most likely to sell are barely profitable, serving small niche markets such as foreign-language speakers. The FCC has stressed that no TV station that wants to stay in business will be forced off the air.

Outgoing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told the conference on Wednesday that the development of the market for mobile video would help, not hurt, TV stations, especially those trying to reach their viewers on tablets and smartphones.

“What’s the biggest threat to mobile being a major opportunity for broadcasters? It’s the spectrum crunch,” Genachowski said. “If we don’t solve that, the ability to take full advantage of interactive video on the mobile platform won’t be there.”

Anika Evans, a board member of Gila River Telecommunications Inc., said she is worried that the repacking of the airwaves could jeopardize a two-year effort to set up a network of seven TV stations to broadcast council meetings and other programming to her low-income Native American community in Arizona.

The tribe hasn’t built its stations yet and there are only two years left on its license to get them up and running. A forced channel change could endanger an expected $1 million-plus investment in technology.

“If come August 2014, they say, `Oh you know what, we’re going to reposition you,’ then we would have to re-invest in potentially a different technology,” she said. “That’s where the danger lies for us.”

Having less bandwidth devoted to TV also means it’ll be harder for ambitious TV station networks to grow.

Jeff Dineen, president and majority owner of the operator of the Bold TV Network, invested in a TV channel in Los Angeles that reaches 2.5 million homes in 2010 and is expanding to Alabama, North Carolina, Texas and elsewhere. His strategy is to buy smaller channels for as little as $50,000 apiece and program them with documentaries, reality TV and family-friendly shows for antenna-only homes. With fewer channels devoted to TV, it’ll be tougher to expand.

“If there’s 20 fewer stations in each market, then that severely impacts my business plan,” he said. “It’ll ultimately stunt our growth and could theoretically put us out of business.”

_________________________________________________

All of this FCC policy is tied to moving global corporations that have their business online-----like global health care and global education ------all needing high-speed internet for their businesses----THIS IS FOR WHICH ALL THAT 'NET NEUTRALITY' and selling of air waves policy works. So, Johns Hopkins and its global health tourism and telemedicine will need tons of high-speed internet access-----as will the Ivy League universities touting their online global campuses needing high-speed for video lectures and conferencing.....THIS IS ALL THESE INTERNET POLICIES ARE FOR----and it all leads to the American people not accessing the internet.

This is why I have for these several years shouted how building these global economies is bad----and Baltimore of course is ground zero for all that is global. This is true for our public universities-----it is critical to protect our public health system------so

STOP ALLOWING GLOBAL POLS TO INSTALL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES THAT ARE ALL ABOUT TAKING ALL OUR INTERNET ACCESS AND EVEN OUR ABILITY TO WATCH TV.


Shhhhhhhhhh!!! Johns Hopkins doesn't want anyone to know and its WYPR and Baltimore Sun will make sure you don't!

Global Telemedicine Market Headed For $27 Billion

BCC Research report says global demand continues to grow, while U.S. market is thriving thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.



The global telemedicine market grew from $9.8 billion in 2010 to $11.6 billion in 2011 and will almost triple to $27.3 billion in 2016, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.6% over the next five years, according to a report from BCC Research.The report, Global Markets for Telemedicine Technologies, is based on interviews with manufacturers and users of telemedicine technologies and services, as well as from reviews of secondary sources such as company literature, conference proceedings, and related government data.
The study's findings come at a time when telemedicine is being adopted by several nations that are using the technology to close the gap in healthcare while lowering the cost of treating patients.
A deeper dive into the research shows that the telemedicine market is segmented into telehospital/clinic and telehome markets. In 2010 the telehospital/clinic market was worth $6.9 billion, and the telehome market was valued at nearly $2.9 billion. The study also found that the telehome segment is growing faster than the telehospital/clinic segment--at a projected CAGR of 22.5% vs. 16.8%--and as a result is expected to increase its share of the market from 29.4% in 2010 to 35.6% by 2016.
[ Most of the largest healthcare data security and privacy breaches have involved lost or stolen mobile computing devices. For possible solutions, see 7 Tools To Tighten Healthcare Data Security. ]
The report also pointed out that the telemedicine market is segmented into technology--hardware, software, telecom, network--and service segments. The technology portion grew from $3.8 billion in 2010 to $4.6 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach $11.3 billion in 2016, with a CAGR of 19.8% over the next five years.
The market for telemedicine services increased from $5.9 billion in 2010 to $7 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach nearly $16 billion in 2016, mainly driven by growth in the telehospital service market. The study also found that the telehospital service market grew from $4.8 billion in 2010 to $5.5 billion in 2011 and could reach $10.6 billion in 2016, with a CAGR 13.9% between 2011 and 2016.
A closer look at U.S. trends suggests that telemedicine market growth has been driven by the implementation of the Obama administration's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a two-year-old law that has intensified the focus on telemedicine as a way to treat an increasing number of people who will be seeking health insurance and medical services. Telemedicine technology enables healthcare personnel to meet this increasing demand without delays in treatment or rationing care, the BCC Research report concludes.
"The PPACA is a catalyst for the increased use of telemedicine," Andrew Williams, a BCC Research analyst, told InformationWeek Healthcare.
Williams noted that the law contains several provisions that could affect telemedicine. For example, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMI) has been directed to test new models of care using telemedicine to improve the care of hospitalized patients, including those in intensive care, through electronic monitoring by specialists located at other facilities. The CMI also is developing new care models that use patient-based remote monitoring systems to coordinate care over time and across settings.
In addition, the CMI is exploring the use of providers located in medically underserved areas and facilities that are part of the Indian Health Service to provide telehealth services for treating stroke and behavioral health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. The CMI also is studying ways to improve the capacity of non-medical providers and non-specialized medical providers to provide health services for patients with chronic conditions. Williams also noted that accountable care organizations are required to create ways to promote evidence-based medicine and patient engagement, report on quality and cost measures, and coordinate care. Among the tactics being considered: telehealth and remote patient monitoring.
The federal government's initiatives have advanced the adoption of telemedicine at hospitals, and that is reflected in BCC's research, said Williams. In the previous edition of the BCC report, many providers said they weren't sure whether telemedicine was a sound business investment, but now, "a growing number of healthcare providers appear to have become convinced of telemedicine's potential benefits," he said.
The 2012 InformationWeek Healthcare IT Priorities Survey finds that grabbing federal incentive dollars and meeting pay-for-performance mandates are the top issues facing IT execs. Find out more in the new, all-digital Time To Deliver issue of InformationWeek Healthcare. (Free registration required.)

_______________________________________________

OH, THE ONE THING THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US SMALL TELECOMS TO CREATE COMPETITION TO GLOBAL TELECOMS------UNBUNDLING OF LOCAL NETWORKS------THE FCC DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT!  THIS IS HOW YOU KNOW THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR WE THE PEOPLE.


'The FCC could have tried to use Title II to require last-mile unbundling, in which Internet providers would have to sell wholesale access to their networks.This would allow new competitors to enter local markets without having to build their own infrastructure. But the FCC decided not to impose unbundling'.


Knowing that the internet will become simply a global business highway------why would Clinton/Obama neo-liberals address the internet as a public utility WHICH IS WHAT WE WANTED -----while allowing the restructuring of all media to global online and using policy like Affordable Care Act to create these global internet businesses? Remember, there is limited airwave and digital space------and these global businesses are going to super-size what is taken-----
The answer is the same as with all public private partnership policies coming from Clinton/Obama neo-liberals-----US taxpayers will pay to maintain and upgrade this internet system that we no longer can access.
Ask why, when Obama and Clinton neo-liberals are dismantling all public utility status for water, energy, transportation, education-------would global pols make the internet a public utility----the answer is that trillions of dollars in taxpayer money is needed to build and expand this new 'public' utility.
We can work at city and state level to end this global corporate capture----we do not want International Economic Zones-----they intend to be our entire local economy ------so make FEZ/TPP ---FREE ZONES of all American cities-----shout loudly and use national security and sovereignty laws to break these global policies up and we can return to REAL internet neutrality for citizens, small businesses, and corporations.

Global pols do not want American citizens connecting all these policies so we know what the goals are-----here we are doing the right thing fighting for internet to be a utility and to be net neutral----but we are not watching as global corporate pols move forward to make sure none of this happens.


Think about how these few decades from Clinton/Bush/Obama how Executive Order of Federalism Act has been used to allow the Federal agencies to ignore enforcement of Federal laws ----we all are suffering from this----so do we really think an FCC under a global pol is going to enforce net neutrality rules to the people's favor? Of course not. Then think how Trans Pacific Trade Pact seeks to allow global corporations to operate outside US laws and US Constitutional rights......IT IS ALL BOGUS IF WE DO NOT SEND GLOBAL POLS PACKING.

FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title IIInternet providers are now common carriers, and they're ready to sue.

by Jon Brodkin - Feb 26, 2015 12:59pm EST

A November 2014 rally at the White House. Public input played an important role in the net neutrality debate.
Stephen Melkisethian

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.
“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.”


The most controversial part of the FCC's decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This decision brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.
The decision comes after a year of intense public interest, with the FCC receiving four million public comments from companies, trade associations, advocacy groups, and individuals. President Obama weighed in as well, asking the FCC to adopt the rules using Title II as the legal underpinning. The vote was 3-2, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans against.
Chairman Tom Wheeler said that broadband providers have the technical ability and financial incentive to impose restrictions on the Internet. Wheeler said further:
The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.
Wheeler also said putting rules in place will give network operators the certainty they need to keep investing.
In May 2014, the Wheeler-led commission proposed rules that relied on weaker authority and did not ban paid fast lanes. Wheeler eventually changed his mind, leading to today's vote.
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the longest-tenured commissioner and someone who supported Title II five years ago, said the net neutrality order does not address only theoretical harms.
"This is more than a theoretical exercise," she said. "Providers here in the United States have, in fact, blocked applications on mobile devices, which not only hampers free expression, it also restricts innovation by allowing companies, not the consumer, to pick winners and losers."
Clyburn convinced Chairman Tom Wheeler to remove language that she believed was problematic.
“We worked closely with the chairman's office to strike an appropriate balance and, yes, it is true that significant changes were made at my office's request, including the elimination of the sender side classification, but I firmly believe that these edits have strengthened this item," she said.
Clyburn, Google, and consumer advocacy groups told Wheeler that language classifying a business relationship between ISPs and Web services as a common carrier service could give ISPs grounds to charge online content providers for access to their networks. This language was removed, but service that ISPs offer to home and business Internet users was still reclassified as a common carrier service. FCC officials believe this classification alone gives them power to enforce net neutrality rules and oversee network interconnection disputes that affect consumers.

Wireless net neutrality puts Verizon and rivals on equal footingSpecial no-blocking rules for Verizon's spectrum will apply to all carriers.


Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon lobbied heavily against the Title II decision and could sue to overturn the rules. But Wheeler believes Title II puts the FCC on stronger legal ground. The FCC previously passed net neutrality rules in 2010, relying on some of its weaker authority, but the rules were largely overturned after a Verizon lawsuit.
By winning that case, Verizon inadvertently opened itself and all other Internet providers up to even stricter rules. The new rules go beyond the net neutrality rules passed in 2010. And this time around, the FCC is applying the rules equally to fixed and mobile broadband, whereas its 2010 rules went easier on Verizon's wireless subsidiary and other cellular companies.
The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers.
The reasonable network management exception applies to blocking and throttling but not paid prioritization.
There are additional Title II requirements that go beyond previous net neutrality rules. There are provisions to investigate consumer complaints, privacy rules, and protections for people with disabilities. Content providers and network operators who connect to ISPs' networks can complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" interconnection rates and practices. There are also rules guaranteeing ISPs access to poles and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, potentially making it easier to enter new markets. (Republican commissioner Ajit Pai argued that the new rules will actually make cable companies and new providers like Google Fiber pay higher fees for access to utility poles.)

Making the Internet a utility—what’s the worst that could happen?

A cable lobby lawyer reveals the industry’s darkest fears.



There is also a "general conduct" standard designed to judge whether future activity not contemplated by the order harms end users or online content providers.
The FCC could have tried to use Title II to require last-mile unbundling, in which Internet providers would have to sell wholesale access to their networks. This would allow new competitors to enter local markets without having to build their own infrastructure. But the FCC decided not to impose unbundling. As such, the vote does little to boost Internet service competition in cities or towns. But it's an attempt to prevent incumbent ISPs from using their market dominance to harm online providers, including those who offer services that compete against the broadband providers' voice and video products.

What’s next: Lawsuits and Congressional intervention


Opponents claim the order will bring new taxes and fees on broadband consumers and onerous procedural requirements for providers. But Wheeler says the order will not authorize any new taxes or fees or impose any "burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards."

Broadband providers claim the rules amount to rate regulation because consumers could bring complaints about their bills to the commission, and the FCC could decide that a particular price is unreasonable. But the FCC would not determine any pricing in advance of specific complaints. Even without Title II, the FCC has authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to impose price caps on broadband, but it hasn't done so.

Don’t call them “utility” rules: The FCC’s net neutrality regime, explained

Not the end of the world: What Tom Wheeler’s proposal will and won’t do.


“The order retains core authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices, protect consumers, and support universal service,” Melissa Kirkel, an FCC attorney advisor, told commissioners. “The order makes clear that broadband providers will not be subject to utility-style regulation. This means no unbundling, tariffs, or other forms of rate regulation, and the order does not require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, nor does it impose, suggest, or authorize any new taxes or fees.”
Today's order could face both legal challenges and action from Congress. Republicans have proposed legislation that would eliminate Title II restrictions for broadband providers and vowed that the FCC vote is just the beginning of the debate.
Although many ISPs publicly oppose the new rules, the industry is by no means united against the FCC. Sprint and T-Mobile US have each said the FCC's proposal would not hurt their business. And while a good number of small broadband providers oppose the imposition of Title II rules, others support Wheeler. The NTCA Rural Broadband Association, which represents rural ISPs, said yesterday that it supports applying Title II to broadband networks.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, spoke to the commission via video. He credited the openness of the Internet with allowing him to create the Web 25 years ago without having to ask "permission."
Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly dissented, accusing Wheeler of bowing to Obama's wishes. O'Rielly's written statement said:
Let me start by issuing apologies. First, I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process. It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the commission’s rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes. It is so disturbing to know that those efforts were about illegitimately pushing a larger political cause mostly unrelated to technology. This administration went so far beyond what has ever been attempted, and its inappropriate interference in the commission’s activities will forever change this institution.
Additionally, I am sorry to the staff members that were forced to prepare a half-baked, illogical, internally inconsistent, and indefensible document. For an institution that prides itself on quality of work and legal and technical expertise, this document is anything but. I guess that an artificial deadline to meet the radical protestors’ demands means that it is more likely that this item gets overturned by the courts because the work and thoughtful analysis needed to actually defend this completely flawed agenda is not included in the text.
Today, a majority of the commission attempts to usurp the authority of Congress by re-writing the Communications Act to suit its own “values” and political ends.
O'Rielly did not recite the first two paragraphs while reading his statement during the meeting.
Some entrepreneurs spoke in front of the commission. Veena Sud, a writer, director, and producer who developed the TV show The Killing, said the show "survived two near deaths" because of the Open Internet. "When AMC canceled us yet again, Netflix took over the show in its entirety and we were able to end the series as it was intended, all because the Internet was opened up to competition and widened the playing field."
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, "We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online, and we do not need blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the Internet as we know it."
Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with "government control." The FCC is seizing unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct and determine what service plans are available to consumers, he said.
"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," he said.
Pai claimed that an Internet provider could "find itself in the FCC's crosshairs" if it doesn't want to offer unlimited data plans. The FCC's order does not actually ban data caps; instead, the FCC is claiming authority to intervene when companies use data caps to harm competitors or customers.
Pai said the FCC is only deferring a decision on new Universal Service fees for broadband rather than ruling them out entirely. Universal Service fees, which fund telecommunications projects in rural and under-served regions, currently apply to phone bills but not Internet service.
The full net neutrality order has not been published yet. The FCC's majority is required to include the Republicans' dissents in the order and "be responsive to those dissents," Wheeler said. The order will go on the FCC's website after that process. The rules will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with one small exception. Enhancements to the transparency rule must undergo an additional review by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

0 Comments

January 21st, 2016

1/21/2016

0 Comments

 
MY COMCAST AND VERIZON LABOR UNION FRIENDS-----LOCAL UNIONS SHOULD BE THOSE CREATING NEW SMALL BUSINESS HIGH-SPEED CO-OPS BECAUSE UNIONS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED OR EFFECTIVE UNDER GLOBAL CORPORATE RULE.

Access to high-speed Internet service — also known as broadband — has become a basic public necessity, just like water or electricity.

All the discussion yesterday was pretty technical but it is very simple----the American people must demand and elect politicians that want to build REAL LOCAL ECONOMIES WITH SMALL BUSINESSES COMPETING IN ALL INDUSTRIES AGAINST GLOBAL CORPORATIONS LIKE COMCAST/VERIZON and it is our city government like Baltimore that will spark that competition.  Startups and innovation are spin for policies meant only to create new products that global corporations will buy-----it is meant to make sure the US does not build real local competition to bring down cost and boost quality.  Baltimore City Hall should be doing this----and yet, they are heavy into startup and innovation and pretending global corporate branches are regional businesses.


Rawlings-Blake is holding our Baltimore underground conduit not only to hedge revenue for the city----she is keeping it public as with our public water just long enough for ratepayers and this $1 trillion of infrastructure building to rebuild all these conduits and then it will be privatized to a global Comcast for example.


Below you see the difference in rates for super-speed in Europe-----very inexpensive----and here comes Comcast in the US.  It was Baltimore's choice of moving Comcast into our internet market under O'Malley/Rawlings-Blake that is leading to this total capture by Comcast of our telecommunications.  I say Comcast because we know this coming decades will see Verizon and Comcast merge into one----called something like VerCom global  I'm sure.

When you come out shouting for FIOS---and not for several smaller high speed telecom companies to compete----this is what you get----and it will knock all citizen and small business consumers off the internet----so that these global corporations can have all the internet space.

Comcast's super fast Internet costs $300 a month

by Jose Pagliery   @Jose_Pagliery July 14, 2015: 5:53 PM ET
Hooking up your home to 2 Gigabit speed Comcast Internet? That'll be about $1,300 and an eight-week wait.
As promised, Comcast (CCV) is starting to offer the fastest Internet in the nation -- for a jaw-dropping $300 per month.That doesn't include an installation fee of around $500, plus another $500 for "activation." Then there's an added cost for "equipment, taxes and fees." Oh, and don't forget the punitive fee if you break your two-year contract.
That means Comcast's next-generation Gigabit Pro, delivering data at 2 Gigabits per second, could cost $1,300 just to start.
That's 200 times faster than most current high-speed Internet networks. It's twice as fast as Google Fiber, which is slowly expanding across the country, but Google (GOOGL, Tech30) offers its über fast Internet for $70 a month. You only pay the $300 construction fee if you cancel.
You could theoretically download an entire music album in three seconds and a feature-length movie in 19 seconds with Comcast Gigabit Pro. You can send data just as quickly.
Still, despite it being a cable service provider, Comcast Gigabit Pro doesn't include TV service. And this super high-speed Internet is "limited... to a single outlet." So, you better have good WiFi.
The new service is available in Atlanta, Chicago, and select major cities across California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan and Tennessee.


__________________________________________
For those not knowing Clinton/Bush/Obama ignored US laws against monopoly and spent two decades really fueling those mergers and acquisitions sparked by global market policies.  When you think of internet---phone----TV we now think of one company with bundled packages.  Comcast was a cable corporation---then was allowed to buy free TV network NBC and made that a global corporation---so Comcast is already a global corporation.  Obama mandated a change to digital broadcasting to advance the march to total media control by telecommunications----this is what we call consolidated monopoly.  Then, Obama allowed an auction of public airwaves giving already existing media outlets the upper-hand and what do we see on free TV-------ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX all now have several stations linked to the national one ----they are doing that because free TV is going to end-----and these TV station airwaves will be designated for all of this high-speed internet and telecom global industry.  It's free TV today----a decade or so it will all be part of this global super-speed internet that only global corporations will be able to access.

Who owns Comcast?  A VERY, VERY, VERY NEO-CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN AND THIS IS WHY OUR LOCAL NEWS---WBAL IS NBC FOR EXAMPLE IS SO GLOBAL CORPORATE---IT WORKS FOR WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT AND JOHNS HOPKINS.



Brian L. Roberts (born June 28, 1959) is an American businessman and is chairman and CEO of Comcast Corporation, an American company providing cable, entertainment, and communications products and services.
Roberts was born into a Jewish family[3][4] in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Suzanne Fleisher, a former actress and playwright, and Ralph J. Roberts, the co-founder of Comcast Corporation. A graduate of Germantown Academy, he earned his B.S. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was admitted to the Zeta Psi fraternity.[ci

He was a founding co-chair of Philadelphia 2000, the nonpartisan host committee for the 2000 Republican National Convention.


Roberts and global Comcast are a perfect fit for a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development and will be handed monopoly control of Baltimore's telecom market if we do not diversify NOW.

COMCAST
NBCUniversalNBCUniversal

— one of the world’s premier media and entertainment companies. Continually bringing new television, movie and theme park experiences to a global audience.NBCUniversal Cable NetworksNBCUniversal Cable networks engage a wide variety of audiences on multiple platforms. From drama and comedy, to unscripted series, from the latest in news and sports, to fashion and kids, our cable networks and digital media properties offer viewers and advertisers unsurpassed value and interest.
Press Release
Golf Channel Matches Highest Rated Year Ever


Our Cable Networks segment operates a diversified portfolio of 16 national cable networks, 15 regional sports and news networks, more than 60 international channels, and digital media properties consisting primarily of brand-aligned and other websites. Our popular cable networks include Bravo Media, consistently the fastest growing ad-supported cable entertainment network; Sprout, the first 24-hour preschool destination available on TV; and USA Network, the number 1 network in all of basic cable. Among the diverse digital media properties of NBCUniversal are Fandango, the nation’s leading moviegoer destination; and Hulu with hit television shows, clips and movies from more than 230 top content companies. 


NBCUniversal Broadcast TelevisionOur Broadcast Television segment operates the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, which together serve audiences and advertisers in all 50 states, including the largest U.S. metropolitan areas.

Founded in 1926, NBC is the nation’s first national broadcast network. Today, the NBC television network gives viewers a combination of NBC’s national programming and the local programming of more than 200 affiliated stations. Through its extensive network, Spanish-language broadcast network Telemundo reaches U.S. Hispanic viewers in 210 markets through its 17 owned stations, broadcast and MVPD affiliates. Telemundo is the second largest provider of Spanish-language content worldwide and syndicates content to more than 100 countries in over 35 languages. NBC News has long been a trusted source of global news and information for American audiences, while NBC Sports Group continues to deliver some of the most-watched events on television, including the top-rated NBC Sunday Night Football and decades of Olympic Games. Comcast and NBC are bringing these broadcasts to more audiences on devices in and out of the home.


NBC Entertainment NBC News Telemundo NBC Sports GroupFilmed EntertainmentFilmed Entertainment consists of the operations of Universal Pictures and Focus Features which produce, acquire, market and distribute filmed entertainment worldwide in various media formats for theatrical, home entertainment, television and other distribution platforms.


Universal Pictures and Focus Features create and distribute filmed entertainment for a growing global marketplace. Since pioneering the motion picture business more than a century ago, Universal has become known for its diverse slate of hits, including classics such as Jaws, E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial, Jurassic Park and Les Miserables; offbeat comedies like Bridesmaids and Ted; and popular franchises such as Back to the Future, Despicable Me, and The Fast and the Furious. Focus Features makes original, daring films such as Brokeback Mountain, Lost in Translation, Moonrise Kingdom, Dallas Buyers Club and the Theory of Everything. Universal and Focus distribute their pictures internationally through theaters, and in homes through DVDs and digital media platforms, TV and on demand.



__________________________________________
If you look at a complete list of holdings by Comcast you see it looks just like our global food corporations like Pepsi------they are being allowed to buy across the board----and look----there is ATT broadband-----so there goes ATT from the broadband competition.

When a corporate government like Maryland pretends to be offering competition----it makes a branch of a global or national corporation look regional----these 'competitors' are all linked to these consolidated corporate structures.  This is why Comcast feels it can charge $300 a month for what sells for $50----and its service is not that good.
Comcast, AT&T Broadband Close MergerBy Erin Joyce   |    November 18, 2002
Page 1 of 1



AT&T has completed the spin-off of its broadband unit and merged it with Comcast Corp. , officially creating the nation's largest cable company valued at around $60 billion, including stock and debt.

Comcast Corporation
  • Comcast Holdings Corporation (or Comcast Holdings)
    • Comcast Cable Communications LLC (Xfinity)
      • Comcast Cable Holdings LLC (formerly AT&T Broadband Corporation)
      • Comcast MO Group LLC (formerly Media One or Bell West)
        • Comcast MO of Delaware, LLC
Acquisitions
  • AT&T Broadband
  • Susquehanna Communications
  • Patriot Media
  • Commuter Cable
  • Group W Cable
  • Adelphia Communications Corporation
______________________________________
When you sell free TV NBC to global cable corporation Comcast----and you allow Comcast to become internet providers----you are deliberately consolidating the media industry and this started more heavily under Clinton-----and Obama has super-sized these industries globally.

It is painful to watch free TV in Baltimore.  Absolutely no journalism----so much sports and weather-----the stations with oldies filled with so much low-end advertising most having goals of defrauding people---the ads are taking more and more and more of free TV and making people hate watching----that is how you kill free TV----just as with bad public schools and bad public transportation.


When Comcast was allowed into Baltimore market the deal came with a Public Access station for Baltimore City that was tied to Comcast-----to see our government access station you have to subscribe to Comcast.  In other words----it will disappear soon.  Right now it is simply used for marketing.

We all know Rupert Murdoch of FOX and his global corporation is very, very, very neo-conservative Republican and FOX is the major network buying more and more TV stations.

SEE WHY NO ONE IN BALTIMORE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY AND IS ALLOWED NO VOICE UNLESS YOU ARE PART OF THIS CORPORATE NON-PROFIT SYSTEM?

So, the goal of global pols is to dismantle yet another public industry------free TV and radio------move all access online and then make one big monopoly of internet access with Verizon and Comcast merging-----if these International Economic Zone policies are allowed to continue-----all of our news and media programming will be international----not American.




By CBSNews.com AP December 29, 2009, 2:01 AM

Is Free TV Coming To An End?

Net Worth: $7.8 billion What It's From: Media/Entertainment Where He Lives: New York, N.Y. Rank on Global List: 43
AP
For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.

The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.

That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels - a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.


"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."


Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts - including college football bowl games - could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees. For its part, Time Warner Cable is asking customers whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations.


The future of free TV also could be altered as the biggest pay-TV provider, Comcast Corp., prepares to take control of NBC. Comcast has not signaled plans to end NBC's free broadcasts. But Jeff Zucker, who runs NBC and its sister cable channels such as CNBC and Bravo, told investors this month that "the cable model is just superior to the broadcast model."

The traditional broadcast model works like this: CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox distribute shows through a network of local stations. The networks own a few stations in big markets, but most are "affiliates," owned by separate companies.

Traditionally, the networks paid affiliates to broadcast their shows, though those fees have dwindled to near nothing as local stations have seen their audience shrink. What hasn't changed is where the money mainly comes from: advertising.

Cable channels make most of their money by charging pay-TV providers a monthly fee per subscriber for their programing. On average, the pay-TV providers pay about 26 cents for each channel they carry, according to research firm SNL Kagan. A channel as highly rated as ESPN can get close to $4, while some, such as MTV2, go for just a few pennies.

With both advertising and fees, ESPN has seen its revenue grow to $6.3 billion this year from $1.8 billion a decade ago, according to SNL Kagan estimates. It has been able to bid for premium events that networks had traditionally aired, such as football games. Cable channels also have been able to fund high-quality shows, such as AMC's "Mad Men," rather than recycling movies and TV series.

That, plus a growing number of channels, has given cable a bigger share of the ad pie. In 1998, cable channels drew roughly $9.1 billion, or 24 percent of total TV ad spending, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. By 2008, they were getting $21.6 billion, or 39 percent.

Having two revenue streams - advertising and fees from pay-TV providers - has insulated cable channels from the recession. In contrast, over-the-air stations have been forced to cut staff, and at least two broadcast groups sought bankruptcy protection this year.

Fox illustrates the trend: Its broadcast operations reported a 54 percent drop in operating income for the quarter that ended in September. Its cable channels, which include Fox News and FX, grew their operating income 41 percent.

Analyst Tom Love of ZenithOptimedia said he expects the big networks will end the year with a 9 percent drop in ad revenue, followed by an 8 percent drop in 2010 and zero growth in 2011.

A small chunk of the ad revenue is being recouped online, where the networks sell episodes for a few dollars each or run ads alongside shows on sites such as Hulu. Media economist Jack Myers projects online video advertising will grow into a $2 billion business by 2012, from just $350 million to $400 million this year.

But that is not significant enough to make up for the lost ad revenue on the airwaves. Advertisers spent $34 billion on broadcast commercials in 2008, down by $2.4 billion from two years earlier, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising.

So rather than wait for the Internet to become a bigger source of income, the networks and local stations are mimicking what cable channels do: They're charging pay-TV companies a monthly fee per subscriber to carry their programming.

Since 1994, the Federal Communications Commission has let networks and their affiliates seek payments for including their programming in the pay-TV lineup. Not everyone demanded payments at first. Instead they relied on the broader audience that cable and satellite gave them to increase what they could charge advertisers.

The big networks also were content to let their broadcast stations essentially be subsidized by higher fees for the cable channels that fell under the same corporate umbrella. A pay-TV company negotiating with the Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, is likely paying more for the ABC Family channel than it otherwise would, with the extra assumed to help Disney cover its costs for the ABC network broadcasts.

But over time - such contracts generally run about three years - more networks began demanding payments for the stations they own. And affiliates already receiving the fees have bargained for more money.

Some talks have been tense. In 2007, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates 32 network-affiliated stations around the country, pulled its signals for nearly a month from Mediacom Communications Corp., which provides cable TV to about 1.3 million subscribers, mainly in small cities.

The American Cable Association says its members - mainly small cable TV providers - have seen their costs for carrying local TV stations more than triple over the past three years. The group's head, Matt Polka, says those fees have gone "straight to consumers' pocketbooks" in the form of higher cable bills.

Gannett Co., for instance, which operates 23 stations, has taken in $56 million in fees from pay-TV operators this year after negotiating a new batch of agreements, up from $18 million in 2008. Dave Lougee, president of Gannett's broadcast arm, defends the fees, saying "broadcasters were late to the game in really starting to go after the fair market value of their signals."

Analysts estimate CBS managed to get as much as 50 cents per subscriber in its most recent talks with pay-TV providers that carry CBS-owned stations. CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonves said such fees should add "hundreds of millions of dollars to revenues annually."

That could be just the beginning. CBS and Fox are also asking for a portion of the fees that their affiliates get, arguing that the networks' shows are what give local stations the leverage to ask for fees.

Over time, the networks might be able to get even more money by abandoning the affiliate structure and undoing a key element of free TV.


Here's why: Pay-TV providers are paying the networks only for the stations the networks own. That amounts to a little less than a third of the TV audience, which means local affiliates recoup two-thirds of the fees. If a network operated purely as a cable channel and cut the affiliates out, the network could get the fees for the entire pay-TV audience.

If forced to go independent, affiliates would have to air their own programming, including local news and syndicated shows.

Fitch Ratings analyst Jamie Rizzo predicts that at least one of the four broadcast networks "could explore" becoming a cable channel as early as 2011.

Any shift would take years, as the networks untangle complicated affiliate contracts. At an analyst conference last year, CBS's Moonves called the idea an "a very interesting proposition." But he added that it "would really change the universe that we're in."


_____________________________________________
As I said Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals always POSE PROGRESSIVE---THEY PRETEND POLICIES THEY PUSH WILL HELP MAIN STREET.  When the national media touted Obama as fighting for NET NEUTRALITY-----this was supposedly why we needed to sell all of that public air wave spectrum ----to create competitive internet markets. 

IF YOU KNOW A POLITICIAN IS A GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERAL OR NEO-CONS YOU KNOW THEY ARE LYING---THEY ARE WORKING TO CONSOLIDATE ANOTHER PUBLIC ASSET----OUR AIRWAVES.

Everyone knows at prices in billions only the rich will be buying---and then they will consolidate----and flip these purchases for profit---selling them to the same telecom monopolies----absolutely no one believes Obama was protecting net neutrality.

High-frequency means stations you find from channel 40 on up-----low-frequency is the Channel 2 to 40.  The reason most free TV is at the lower end is that these signals are strong enough to be captured and sent to all homes.....these are the frequencies most wanted by the internet corporations like Comcast and Verizon. 

THE POINT IS THIS-------THESE MEDIA CORPORATIONS ARE BUYING THESE BROADBAND SPECTRUM NOT TO EXPAND FREE TV -----BUT TO CONVERT TO HIGH-SPEED INTERNET---THE KIND OVER 90% OF AMERICANS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS.


They make this sound like a free market move----when it will all end in the hands of a crony monopoly of global media.  Republican corporate pols shouted the same thing as they dismantled our public energy utilities----and now we have soon to be global Exelon.


The F.C.C. chairman, Tom Wheeler. “Years of hard work paved the way” for the auction, he said.

When Congress votes for these corporate appointments to Federal Agencies like the FCC---it mirrors the appointments by governors like O'Malley-----creating public policy by commission and then appointing corporate people moving all public policy to global corporate profit.

IT MATTERS WHO WE SEND TO CONGRESS----WHO WE SEND TO MARYLAND ASSEMBLY---WHO WE SEND TO BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR-----BECAUSE THEY ARE APPROVING ALL THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE APPOINTMENTS TO OUR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

When I hear someone tell me-----Obama can't help it-----O'Malley can't help it-------Rawlings-Blake can't help it -----Wall Street is too strong ----I shout

YES THEY CAN HELP IT----THEY WERE ELECTED TO CHANGE THIS------AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE FOOLED INTO THINKING THIS CANNOT BE REVERSED!


Bidding in Government Auction of Airwaves Reaches $34 Billion

By EDWARD WYATTNOV. 22, 2014

Photo

A cell tower in California. Bidding for six blocks of airwaves to be used in mobile broadband has topped $34 billion, more than three times the reserve price set by the Federal Communications Commission.

Credit Justin Sullivan/Getty Images



WASHINGTON — A government auction of airwaves for use in mobile broadband has blown through presale estimates, becoming the biggest auction in the Federal Communications Commission’s history and signaling that wireless companies expect demand for Internet access by smartphones to continue to soar.
And it’s not over yet.
Companies bid more than $34 billion as of Friday afternoon for six blocks of airwaves, totaling 65 megahertz of the electromagnetic spectrum, being sold by the F.C.C. That total is more than three times the $10.5 billion reserve price that the commission put on the sale, the first offering of previously unavailable airwaves in six years.
Prices are likely to rise further, because the auction has no definite end and could continue for days or weeks. The previous record was $18.9 billion raised in a 2008 sale of airwaves that, because of their lower frequency, are considered more attractive for wireless phone use than the current batch.
“It’s stunning,” said Preston Padden, executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition, a group representing broadcast television stations that are considering giving up their spectrum for sale in the F.C.C.’s next auction, scheduled for 2016. “Consumer demand for wireless broadband is on a growth curve that looks like a hockey stick, and carriers are desperate to keep up with that demand.”

Several factors appear to have contributed to the auction’s success, as the pent-up demand from years without an auction coincided with the explosive popularity of smartphones and mobile broadband. The response is more surprising given that the airwaves’ high frequency makes them less attractive for wireless use than those sold in the last auction or scheduled for the 2016 sale.
Coming soon after President Obama called for strong net neutrality regulations to be applied equally to wireless networks, the robust bidding also seems to indicate that mobile phone companies are not as reluctant to make new investments as they indicated they were when protesting the president’s recommendation.
The auction is a significant victory for the F.C.C. and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the agency in the Commerce Department that oversees the nation’s communications systems. It makes it much likelier that broadcast stations might be willing to give up or move their positions on the spectrum to free up airwaves to be sold in the 2016 auction, because they will receive a portion of the proceeds as an incentive.
“Years of hard work paved the way” for the auction, “and ongoing bidding appears to signal considerable commercial interest in this spectrum,” the F.C.C. chairman, Tom Wheeler, and an assistant secretary of commerce, Lawrence E. Strickling, said in a joint statement on Friday.
About $7 billion of the proceeds will be used to finance the building of a nationwide public-safety communications network, known as FirstNet, with the remainder going to the Treasury.
A successful sale was anything but a foregone conclusion. The frequencies are currently occupied by government agencies, including branches of the military, which had to be cajoled to agree to move out or to share portions of them.
The relatively high position on the electromagnetic spectrum of the blocks being sold also cast doubt on their attractiveness. Higher-frequency waves generally have more trouble passing through buildings, making them less desirable for mobile phones, although they are able to carry lots of data, increasingly important to wireless broadband.
Frequencies being sold include two blocks in the 1695-1710 megahertz band, and four paired sets of frequencies at 1755-1780 and 2155-2180 megahertz. The next scheduled broadcast spectrum auction, in 2016, involves frequencies in the 600 megahertz band.
The last such sale was in 2008, when the iPhone was barely a year old and demand for mobile broadband was at a relative trickle. Today, as consumers stream video and share photographs with many more phones, tablets and other devices, demand for bandwidth has exploded.
Some analysts have also speculated that because the auction of broadcast television bands currently scheduled for 2016 has already been delayed twice, buyers might be skeptical that those frequencies will come to market on schedule — giving them extra incentive to buy now rather than wait.
Still, the current spectrum, known as the AWS-3 bands, is also not likely to be available for use for some years. Government users will first have to move out of the bands, or buyers figure out how to share some of the airwaves with military operators.
Seventy companies were approved to bid in the auction, but the high bidders will not be identified until after the auction is completed. New owners will then have to engineer their devices to work with the high-frequency spectrum, although the biggest companies, like AT&T and Verizon Wireless, already use similar, adjacent frequencies, so that is not likely to be too onerous.
Verizon Wireless and AT&T are assumed to be among the big bidders in the sale. But Philip Cusick, a financial analyst at J.P. Morgan, wrote in a note to clients on Thursday that “the continued rapid rise in bids is a sign that there is a third, or perhaps fourth, large bidder in the auction.”
One of those could be Dish Network, the satellite company, which already owns some nearby frequencies. Dish Network’s share price rose 13 percent last week as investors realized the aggressive bidding meant Dish’s holdings were probably undervalued.
Shares of Verizon and AT&T, for their part, fell slightly, as analysts noted that the companies might be spending more than they expected.
Some prices are truly eye-popping. The price for licenses in a 20-megahertz block of paired frequencies covering New York and Long Island and portions of adjacent states stood at $1.96 billion Friday afternoon. In the bidding round that starts Monday morning, the minimum bid is more than $2 billion.
The results of the yet-to-be-completed auction have some parties calling for Congress to pave the way for more sales, and soon. “Companies are clamoring to give the federal government money,” Vince Jesaitis, vice president for government affairs at the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade group, wrote on the group’s blog last week.
“The clamoring for spectrum available in this auction,” he added, “should refocus our lawmakers’ attention on the value of this resource and the need to put it to use to meet the needs of the American public.”

___________________________________________

FOOLED US ONCE ---SHAME ON THEM----FOOLED US TWICE----SHAME ON US.
Most of the tech startup and innovation is driven by global technology corporations wanting new products to keep their BRAND in profits. I showed that most Americans will not even be able to access mobile phones or internet so who are going to buy that new APP? You have to market globally and only the global corporations with governors, Congressional pols, or Presidents taking you on Asian economic tours will grow that business. Startups are meant to keep Americans from rebuild REAL local economies. We don't need innovation---or global markets-----WE NEED LOCAL COMPETITION IN INDUSTRIES MONOPOLIZED BY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.

This is what a Maryland Assembly and Governor O'Malley or Hogan would be sending funding to do if they were social Democrats----they are not---they are raging global Wall Street neo-liberals and neo-cons so they send all that money to build International Economic Zones -----Innovation Centers----with no funds going to growing small businesses the people really need.

All of this government funding used to go to Small Business Assoc which and granted to grow competition in industries -----now it is going to maintain monopoly.

Why startups fail, according to their founders
  • by 
  • Erin Griffith
  • @eringriffith
September 25, 2014, 3:00 PM EST


The top reason? They make products no one wants.
When the founder of a startup company shuts down her or his business, it’s customary to pen an essay that tells the rest of the community what went wrong. Call it a failure post-mortem. Nine out of 10 startups fail, which is why the failure post-mortem has become so common that it’s practically a Silicon Valley cliché. Some of these essays are honest, enlightening, and brave. Others point fingers or issue backward non-apologies. Medium, the publishing platform, is the preferred medium.
The proliferation of the failure post-mortem has helped create a bizarre cult of failure that seems wrong-headed. Celebrating failure (“Fail fast” goes the mantra) seems to let people off the hook for bad behavior. Upon closer inspection, it seems less misguided than necessary. Starting a high-growth business is a roller coaster. Founder-CEOs feel pressure to keep up the facade of success, even when things are actually falling apart behind the scenes. Only recently, after the tragic suicide of Jody Sherman, CEO of a startup called Ecomom, did the technology community begin to publicly acknowledge the problems with its “entrepreneur as hero” narrative. Publicly admitting to failure, and examining it, can take guts. It also distills the narrative to a case study from which other entrepreneurs can learn.
CB Insights recently parsed 101 post-mortem essays by startup founders to pinpoint the reasons they believe their company failed. On Thursday the company crunched the numbers to reveal that the number-one reason for failure, cited by 42% of polled startups, is the lack of a market need for their product.
That should be self-evident. If no one wants your product, your company isn’t going to succeed. But many startups build things people don’t want with the irrational hope that they’ll convince them otherwise.
The most prominent modern example of this phenomenon is the mobile phone. People dismissed it as a novelty in its early days. Obviously, cell phones are no longer a novelty. The late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs famously said, “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” The problem is that entrepreneurs have taken that to heart. For every $19 billion company like Uber, the private transportation service, there are countless frivolous products that never catch on.
Beyond the idea, there are more practical reasons startups fail. Polled founders also cited a lack of sufficient capital (29%), the assembly of the wrong team for the project (23%), and superior competition (19%) as top reasons for failure.


The self-assessment lines up, for the most part, with what industry experts have said. Paul Graham, a partner at the Y Combinator startup accelerator, wrote in 2007 that startups usually die because they run out of money or a founder leaves.
Steve Hogan, who runs a startup turn-around shop called Tech-Rx, says companies with founded by one person—that is, no partners—are most likely to fail. He ranks product demand, or a lack thereof, second. The existence of a co-founder helps avoid many of the reasons cited at the bottom of the CB Insights chart, he says, including disharmony, poor marketing, and the wrong team.
Running out of cash does not cause a startup’s failure, Hogan says—it’s merely a symptom of another issue. Excluding instances of “stupid spending” or the inability to raise capital in the first place, startups tend to run out of cash when a CEO has overlooked all other indicators of failure. “Unfortunately, sometimes it’s the only ‘symptom’ that the leadership sees,” he says.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Cindy Walsh is a lifelong political activist and academic living in Baltimore, Maryland.

    Archives

    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    2014 Economic Crash
    21st Century Economy
    Affordable Care Act
    Affordable Care Act
    Alec
    Americorp/VISTA
    Anthony Brown
    Anthony Brown
    Anti Incumbant
    Anti-incumbant
    Anti Incumbent
    Anti Incumbent
    Attacking The Post Office Union
    Baltimore And Cronyism
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Recall/Retroactive Term Limits
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Of America
    Bank Settlement
    Bank-settlement
    B Corporations
    Bgeexelon Mergerf59060c411
    Brookings Institution
    Business Tax Credits
    California Charter Expansion
    Cardin
    Career Colleges
    Career Colleges Replacing Union Apprenticeships
    Charters
    Charter School
    Collection Agencies
    Common Core
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Consumer-financial-protection-bureau
    Corporate Media
    Corporate-media
    Corporate Oversight
    Corporate-oversight
    Corporate Politicians
    Corporate-politicians
    Corporate Rule
    Corporate-rule
    Corporate Taxes
    Corporate-taxes
    Corporate Tax Reform
    Corporatizing Us Universities
    Cost-benefit-analysis
    Credit Crisis
    Credit-crisis
    Cummings
    Department Of Education
    Department Of Justice
    Department-of-justice
    Derivatives Reform
    Development
    Dismantling Public Justice
    Dodd Frank
    Doddfrankbba4ff090a
    Doug Gansler
    Doug-gansler
    Ebdi
    Education Funding
    Education Reform
    Edwards
    Election Reform
    Election-reform
    Elections
    Emigration
    Energy-sector-consolidation-in-maryland
    Enterprise Zones
    Equal Access
    Estate Taxes
    European Crisis
    Expanded And Improved Medicare For All
    Expanded-and-improved-medicare-for-all
    Failure To Prosecute
    Failure-to-prosecute
    Fair
    Fair And Balanced Elections
    Fair-and-balanced-elections
    Farm Bill
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmaryland
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmarylandd20a348918
    Federal-emergency-management-agency-fema
    Federal Reserve
    Financial Reform Bill
    Food Safety Not In Tpp
    For Profit Education
    Forprofit-education
    Fracking
    Fraud
    Freedom Of Press And Speech
    Frosh
    Gambling In Marylandbaltimore8dbce1f7d2
    Granting Agencies
    Greening Fraud
    Gun Control Policy
    Healthcare For All
    Healthcare-for-all
    Health Enterprise Zones
    High Speed Rail
    Hoyer
    Imf
    Immigration
    Incarceration Bubble
    Incumbent
    Incumbents
    Innovation Centers
    Insurance Industry Leverage And Fraud
    International Criminal Court
    International Trade Deals
    International-trade-deals
    Jack Young
    Jack-young
    Johns Hopkins
    Johns-hopkins
    Johns Hopkins Medical Systems
    Johns-hopkins-medical-systems
    Kaliope Parthemos
    Labor And Justice Law Under Attack
    Labor And Wages
    Lehmann Brothers
    Living Wageunionspolitical Action0e39f5c885
    Maggie McIntosh
    Maggie-mcintosh
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin-omalley
    Martin-omalley8ecd6b6eb0
    Maryland Health Co Ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops1f77692967
    Maryland Health Coopsccd73554da
    Maryland Judiciary
    Marylandnonprofits
    Maryland Non Profits
    Maryland Nonprofits2509c2ca2c
    Maryland Public Service Commission
    Maryland State Bar Association
    Md Credit Bondleverage Debt441d7f3605
    Media
    Media Bias
    Media-bias
    Medicaremedicaid
    Medicaremedicaid8416fd8754
    Mental Health Issues
    Mental-health-issues
    Mers Fraud
    Mikulski
    Military Privatization
    Minority Unemploymentunion And Labor Wagebaltimore Board Of Estimates4acb15e7fa
    Municipal Debt Fraud
    Ndaa-indefinite-detention
    Ndaaindefinite Detentiond65cc4283d
    Net Neutrality
    New Economy
    New-economy
    Ngo
    Non Profit To Profit
    Nonprofit To Profitb2d6cb4b41
    Nsa
    O'Malley
    Odette Ramos
    Omalley
    O'Malley
    Open Meetings
    Osha
    Patronage
    Pension-benefit-guaranty-corp
    Pension Funds
    Pension-funds
    Police Abuse
    Private-and-public-pension-fraud
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People6541f468ae
    Private Non Profits
    Private-non-profits
    Private Nonprofits50b33fd8c2
    Privatizing Education
    Privatizing Government Assets
    Privatizing-the-veterans-admin-va
    Privitizing Public Education
    Progressive Policy
    Progressive Taxes Replace Regressive Policy
    Protections Of The People
    Protections-of-the-people
    Public Education
    Public Funding Of Private Universities
    Public Housing Privatization
    Public-libraries-privatized-or-closed
    Public Private Partnerships
    Public-private-partnerships
    Public Transportation Privatization
    Public Utilities
    Rapid Bus Network
    Rawlings Blake
    Rawlings-blake
    Rawlingsblake1640055471
    Real Progressives
    Reit-real-estate-investment-trusts
    Reitreal Estate Investment Trustsa1a18ad402
    Repatriation Taxes
    Rule Of Law
    Rule-of-law
    Ruppersberger
    SAIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
    Sarbanes
    S Corp Taxes
    Selling Public Datapersonal Privacy
    Smart Meters
    Snowden
    Social Security
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement0d62c56e69
    Statistics As Spin
    Statistics-as-spin
    Student-corps
    Subprime Mortgage Fraud
    Subprime-mortgage-fraud
    Surveillance And Security
    Sustainability
    Teachers
    Teachers Unions2bc448afc8
    Teach For America
    Teach For America
    Technology Parks
    Third Way Democrats/new Economy/public Union Employees/public Private Patnerships/government Fraud And Corruption
    Third Way Democratsnew Economypublic Union Employeespublic Private Patnershipsgovernment Fraud And Corruption
    Third-way-democratsnew-economypublic-union-employeespublic-private-patnershipsgovernment-fraud-and-corruptionc10a007aee
    Third Way/neo Liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals5e1e6d4716
    Third Wayneoliberals7286dda6aa
    Tifcorporate Tax Breaks2d87bba974
    Tpp
    Transportation Inequity In Maryland
    Union Busting
    Unionbusting0858fddb8b
    Unions
    Unionsthird Waypost Officealec3c887e7815
    Universities
    Unreliable Polling
    Unreliable-polling
    Van Hollen
    Van-hollen
    VEOLA Environment -privatization Of Public Water
    Veterans
    War Against Women And Children
    War-against-women-and-children
    Youth Works

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.